Mary C. v. Dcs, J.S., 1 CA-JV 17-0149

J.S., born Nov. 2009, was taken into DCS custody in early 2015 after reports the family was homeless, staying in a drug house, and there were domestic-violence and substance-abuse concerns; dependency was found and the plan was reunification.
Mother initially refused testing and did not complete a psychological evaluation in summer 2015; later testing ruled out substance abuse, but a January 2016 eval diagnosed Mother with mild–moderate intellectual disability and a rule-out dependent personality disorder, finding she likely could not raise a child independently.
Mother engaged in parent-aide services but was unsuccessfully closed out for not following direction and failing to meet goals; she later declined some offered individual counseling and only self-referred to counseling after separating from Father in Sept. 2016.
J.S. was placed out-of-state in June 2016; the case plan was changed to severance and adoption in July 2016 and DCS moved to terminate Mother’s rights in Aug. 2016 on mental-illness and 15-month time-in-care grounds.
After a contested severance hearing in March 2017, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights, finding DCS made reasonable reunification efforts and termination was in J.S.’s best interests; Mother appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DCS’s Argument	Held
Whether DCS made diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services after Mother separated from Father	Mother: DCS failed to provide continued counseling and a second parent-aide referral after separation, so efforts were not diligent	DCS: Offered services, provided referrals and information; second parent-aide is not routinely provided and would have been futile given out-of-state placement	Court: DCS made reasonable, diligent efforts; no error
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests	Mother: She and J.S. are strongly bonded and child wants to return; Mother has made some improvements	DCS: Existing adoptive placement meets child’s needs; Mother’s deficits and uncertain remediation timeline harm child’s stability	Court: Termination is in J.S.’s best interests given adoptive plan, ability to meet needs, and risk of indefinite foster-care delay

Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (discusses burden for severance: clear and convincing for grounds; preponderance for best interests)
Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (standard for terminating parental rights)
Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (deference to trial court factfinding in severance cases)
Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dept. of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (parent may dispute evidence of diligent efforts at termination hearing)
Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (state’s obligation to make reasonable reunification efforts)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348 (agency must give time/opportunity to participate in programs to reunify)
Pima Cty. Severance Action No. S-2397, 161 Ariz. 574 (DCS not required to duplicate services already offered)
Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376 (adoptive placement availability and whether placement meets child’s needs are proper severance considerations)
Mario G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 282 (court must find termination benefits child or continuation harms child)
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96 (bond between parent and child is a factor but not dispositive)