Paul B. v. Dcs, D.D., 1 CA-JV 21-0154

D.C.S. removed D.D. (b. Jan. 2018) in March 2018; removal was partly due to Mother’s uncontrolled seizures and her need for constant supervision. Father initially declined involvement and lived intermittently in unstable housing.
Paternity was established in May 2018; the juvenile court adjudicated D.D. dependent and approved reunification services.
Father was referred to parent‑aide services twice (closed unsuccessfully both times), missed/was inconsistent in supervised visits, declined counseling recommended after a psychological evaluation, and failed to complete required consecutive visits to trigger further services.
DCS moved to terminate Father’s rights under A.R.S. § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) (15+ months out‑of‑home placement). The juvenile court granted termination after a contested two‑day hearing in April 2021, finding the statutory ground was met and termination was in D.D.’s best interests.
Father appealed, arguing DCS did not make reasonable reunification efforts and that he could remedy circumstances and provide a stable home; he does not contest the adequacy finding below and does not dispute the placement’s suitability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
1. Did DCS make reasonable reunification efforts?	DCS failed to offer services Dr. Levitan recommended and should have offered a third parent‑aide or separate psychoeducational intervention.	DCS provided appropriate evidence‑based services (parent‑aide/skill sessions); Father repeatedly failed to engage and never met prerequisites for further referrals.	Court: DCS made reasonable efforts; Father waived some challenges and record supports adequacy.
2. Was the § 8‑533(B)(8)(c) out‑of‑home placement ground proven (15+ months, unremedied circumstances, unlikely to parent in near future)?	Father asserted he made progress (paternity, housing, employment, bonding, parenting another child) and could remedy circumstances.	DCS pointed to prolonged inconsistent participation, missed visits, failed service completions, and no demonstrable change after three years.	Court: Reasonable evidence supported the out‑of‑home placement ground and finding Father unlikely to provide effective parental care in the near future.
3. Is termination in the child’s best interests?	Father argued he could provide a safe, stable, permanent home for D.D.	DCS argued current placement meets D.D.’s needs, provides stability, intends to adopt, and can meet special medical needs.	Court: Termination is in D.D.’s best interests because current placement is nurturing and adoption is likely.

Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282 (App. 2016) (explains burden: statutory ground by clear and convincing evidence and best interests by preponderance).
Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86 (App. 2009) (appellate review: affirm if reasonable evidence supports termination).
Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278 (App. 2002) (juvenile court best positioned to weigh credibility and evidence).
Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dept. of Econ. Sec., 193 Ariz. 185 (App. 1999) (DCS must provide services and opportunity to participate).
Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231 (App. 2011) (DCS not required to provide futile services but must give time and opportunity to participate).
Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174 (App. 2014) (failure to challenge adequacy of services below waives that argument on appeal).
Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (2018) (best‑interests test: child benefits from severance or is harmed if severance denied; consider totality of circumstances).