Tanya K. v. Department of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 154

Tanya K. previously had parental rights to child A.K. terminated on June 12, 2013 under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) for substance abuse.
Tanya gave birth to P.K. on March 20, 2015; P.K. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth and DCS took immediate custody.
DCS filed a dependency petition for P.K. on March 26, 2015 and a petition to terminate Tanya’s parental rights to P.K. on May 7, 2015 under A.R.S. § 8-533(A) and (B)(10) (prior termination within the preceding two years for same cause + current inability to parent for same cause).
The juvenile court measured the statute’s “within the preceding two years” period from the June 12, 2013 termination of A.K. to the May 7, 2015 filing date and found the statutory timing satisfied; at the October 7, 2015 termination hearing the court found Tanya still unable to discharge parental responsibilities due to substance abuse and terminated her rights to P.K.
Tanya argued on appeal the two-year window should be measured to the date of the severance (termination) hearing in the second matter and that she was denied sufficient time/services to remedy her substance abuse.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How to measure “within the preceding two years” in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(10)	Measure from date of first-severance to date of second-severance hearing	Measure from date of first-severance to date petition to terminate in second matter	Measured from date of first termination to filing date of petition to terminate the second child (petition date is end point)
Whether DCS provided reasonable time/opportunity for services	Tanya: DCS delayed services and she needed more time/transportation	DCS: provided referrals, testing, visits, cab service; Tanya failed to participate	Court found DCS provided reasonable opportunity; Tanya failed to engage; termination affirmed

McNamara v. Citizens Protecting Tax Payers, 236 Ariz. 192, 337 P.3d 557 (app. 2014) (standard of de novo review for legal/statutory issues)
Grubaugh v. Blomo ex rel. Cty. of Maricopa, 238 Ariz. 264, 359 P.3d 1008 (app. 2015) (plain-meaning rule; apply clear statutory text)
Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. 470, 808 P.2d 1222 (1991) (statutory construction principles)
State v. Proctor, 196 Ariz. 557, 2 P.3d 647 (app. 1998) (read statutes in context and give meaningful operation to provisions)
State ex rel. Ariz. Registrar of Contractors v. Johnston, 222 Ariz. 353, 214 P.3d 441 (app. 2009) (if ambiguity exists consult legislative history and purpose)
Ballesteros v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 226 Ariz. 345, 248 P.3d 193 (2011) (use of non-legislator statements when reflecting legislative intent)
Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 219 P.3d 296 (app. 2009) (appellate review of termination: evidence viewed in light most favorable to sustaining)
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 207 Ariz. 43, 83 P.3d 43 (app. 2004) (DCS must make reasonable efforts to provide services or show futility)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 884 P.2d 234 (app. 1994) (DCS must give time and opportunity to participate in programs)
Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571, 869 P.2d 1224 (app. 1994) (DCS not required to leave remediation window open indefinitely)