Background
Robert H. (“Father”) and Valerie B. (“Mother”) had two children, A.H. and N.N. N.N. was born substance-exposed to methamphetamine, and Father was arrested during the birth after threatening a nurse. Mother then left N.N. at the hospital, and the Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) later located A.H. with her parents at a shelter. The juvenile court adjudicated both children dependent and approved a family-reunification plan.
DCS offered Father supervised visitation, drug testing, substance-abuse assessment and treatment, paternity testing, transportation, and case management. Father consistently attended supervised visits but completed no drug testing for nearly 18 months, preventing his participation in DCS-arranged treatment through Terros. He claimed to have attended a separate treatment program, but he supplied no records establishing his participation, and DCS could not verify it.
The juvenile court terminated Father’s rights on substance-abuse and time-in-care grounds. Although the order covered both children, Father did not contest termination as to N.N. at the termination hearing and challenged only the termination of his rights to A.H. on appeal, arguing that DCS had failed to provide adequate reunification services.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Reasonable evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that DCS made the reasonable or diligent reunification efforts required for termination based on substance abuse and time in care. A late-2025 service letter informed the parents how to obtain substance-abuse treatment through Terros, and Father’s inability to access that treatment resulted from his refusal to complete drug testing rather than any omission by DCS.
The court also held that, even if DCS had offered no further services after Father’s claimed treatment program closed in November 2025, additional substance-abuse treatment would have been futile. Father had repeatedly declined testing, limited constructive communication with the caseworker, and otherwise refused to engage with the offered services apart from visitation. DCS was not required to provide every conceivable service, ensure Father’s participation, or offer services lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
Key Takeaways
- DCS satisfied its reunification obligations by offering services directed at the conditions underlying the children’s placement, including testing and substance-abuse treatment.
- A parent’s refusal to complete drug testing can prevent access to treatment without rendering DCS’s reunification efforts inadequate.
- DCS need not offer additional services when the parent’s sustained nonparticipation shows that those services would be futile.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that courts evaluate the adequacy of reunification efforts in light of both the services DCS offered and the parent’s response. A parent generally cannot decline offered services and constructive communication, then rely on the resulting treatment gap to establish that DCS failed to make reasonable or diligent efforts.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.