Background
Camilla B. appealed a Maricopa County juvenile court order finding her child, S.E., dependent. Mother had a history of substance abuse, including 2022 diagnoses of opioid and alcohol abuse disorders, and had agreed in related custody proceedings to abstain from all substances, including alcohol.
After reports raised concerns about S.E.’s condition in Mother’s care, the Department of Child Safety investigated in 2025. S.E. reported that Mother drank alcohol to intoxication and that her intoxication affected his care. DCS removed S.E. on January 9, 2026. Following a contested hearing, the juvenile court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother’s substance-abuse issues made her unable to provide proper and effective parental care or control.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that reasonable evidence supported the dependency adjudication, including nine alcohol-positive test samples submitted by Mother between February 2025 and February 2026, as well as samples positive for cocaine and its metabolite and for opioids and codeine.
The court also relied on the investigator’s testimony about S.E.’s reports that Mother drank to intoxication, required him to perform tasks she could not complete while intoxicated, and at times left him without food or unable to obtain food. The appellate court deferred to the juvenile court’s credibility finding rejecting Mother’s denial that she had a current alcohol problem and declined to reweigh conflicting evidence. It also rejected Mother’s “horizontal appeal” argument because the prior order she cited arose in a separate family-court matter, not the same dependency case.
Key Takeaways
- A dependency finding is upheld when reasonable evidence shows a parent cannot safely provide proper and effective care because of substance abuse.
- Past substance-abuse evidence may provide context for current conditions when the record also shows ongoing substance use at the time of adjudication.
- Appellate courts defer to juvenile courts on witness credibility and do not reweigh contested evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that current positive drug or alcohol tests, combined with evidence that intoxication affected a child’s supervision or access to food, can support a dependency adjudication by a preponderance of the evidence. A parent’s contrary testimony does not require reversal when the juvenile court reasonably finds it not credible.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.