Kristina T. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 17-0092

Mother is the biological parent of four children removed by the Department of Child Safety (DCS) in Oct 2015; DCS alleged neglect, substance abuse, and failure to protect from sexual abuse.
Mediation resulted in out-of-home placements and an agreement that Mother would participate in services (drug testing/treatment, psychological evaluation, parent-aide, counseling) and have supervised visitation.
Mother completed some services (individual counseling, drug testing) but missed appointments, did not complete parent-aide goals, and family counseling was not implemented due to children’s reluctance.
A June 2016 psychological evaluation found trauma-related symptoms and a guarded prognosis for adequate parenting without further work; parent-aide reports indicated Mother failed to demonstrate necessary parenting skills.
At the Feb 2017 adjudication hearing DCS withdrew the substance-abuse allegation; the superior court found the children dependent due to Mother’s ineffective care and the children’s behavioral/school problems and distress about returning home.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to make specific factual findings and (2) insufficient evidence supported dependency; the court’s order was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact	Court’s order lacked required specific factual findings; reversal needed	Mother waived the issue by not objecting below; even if reviewed, no fundamental error shown	Waived for failure to object; no fundamental error — Mother had a fair hearing and was not prejudiced
Whether evidence was sufficient to adjudicate the children dependent	Insufficient evidence to show Mother incapable of effective parental care and that dependency was in children’s best interests	Testimony, psychological evaluation, parent-aide reports, and children’s wishes provided reasonable evidence of incapacity and best interests	Affirmed: reasonable evidence supported dependency adjudication

Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (App. 2007) (issues not raised below generally forfeited on appeal)
Trantor v. Fredrikson, 179 Ariz. 299 (1994) (errors not raised below cannot be raised on appeal absent extraordinary/fundamental error)
Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 89 (App. 2005) (standard for fundamental error in juvenile proceedings)
Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236 (App. 2012) (importance of express findings for appellate review and case monitoring)
Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231 (App. 2005) (dependency review limited to whether reasonable evidence supports adjudication)
Shella H. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47 (App. 2016) (dependency court considers circumstances at time of adjudication)