Shyann P. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 17-0363

Mother has a long history of methamphetamine abuse; DCS previously removed the children in 2014 and returned them in 2015 after services.
August 2016: DCS removed children again for alleged substance use, lack of supervision, and unstable housing; children were returned in December 2016 after drug tests, treatment, employment, and housing were documented.
February 8, 2017: Mother crashed her car while driving to pick up the children, fled the scene, later failed field sobriety tests, had a .187 BAC on blood testing, and pled guilty to DUI; DCS observed puncture wounds on her arm and she admitted to methamphetamine issues.
In the weeks before and after the DUI Mother missed in-home service sessions, declined certain services, was discharged after the DUI, and exhibited erratic, possibly intoxicated behavior during calls to DCS in May 2017; reports included racist and abusive statements to the foster parent.
At the one-day dependency hearing, the DCS caseworker testified Mother did not demonstrate understanding of why removal occurred, might have untreated mental illness, and that returning the children would be unsafe; the superior court found by preponderance that Mother abused substances and was unable/unwilling to provide for the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supported dependency based on ongoing substance abuse	Mother: evidence (negative drug tests after prior incidents, completion of counseling, facility assessment) shows she does not have ongoing substance abuse	DCS: DUI to daycare, missed tests, prior meth history, erratic episodes show unresolved substance abuse making return unsafe	Court: Held dependency affirmed — substantial evidence supports ongoing substance-abuse ground
Whether superior court erred in finding Mother unable to provide for children's basic needs	Mother: she had stable housing and employment; reliance on public assistance improperly weighed	DCS: basic-needs concerns coupled with substance abuse justify dependency	Court: Did not decide merits because substance-abuse finding alone affirmed the order

Louis C. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484 (App. 2015) (standard of review for dependency orders)
Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231 (App. 2005) (juvenile court's broad discretion and focus on child's best interests)
Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543 (App. 1987) (trial court best positioned to weigh evidence and credibility)
Shella H. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47 (App. 2016) (dependency inquiry focuses on parent's condition at time of hearing)
Carolina H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 232 Ariz. 569 (App. 2013) (same principle regarding timing of dependency findings)
Kocher v. Dep't of Revenue of Ariz., 206 Ariz. 480 (App. 2003) (finding not clearly erroneous where substantial evidence supports it despite conflicting proof)
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 242 Ariz. 277 (2017) (appellate obligation to affirm for any correct legal reason)
State v. Perez, 141 Ariz. 459 (1984) (principle quoted regarding affirming on any correct ground)