Background
Mother used oxycodone during her pregnancy with A.L., who experienced withdrawal after birth. After Mother and A.L. later tested positive for fentanyl, the Department of Child Safety placed A.L. with family. The Department eventually filed a dependency petition after it could not locate Mother and alleged neglect, substance abuse, and inability to meet A.L.’s basic needs.
Mother gave birth to B.L. in November 2024. B.L. required special medical care after prenatal fentanyl and cocaine exposure. The juvenile court found B.L. dependent after Mother did not appear for the dependency hearing. DCS offered Mother substance-abuse assessment and treatment, drug testing, counseling, parenting programs, transportation, and supervised visitation, but Mother minimally participated, missed drug tests and visits, and displayed apparent substance-abuse concerns during several visits.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order. Although Mother did not preserve her challenge to DCS’s reunification efforts by raising it in juvenile court, the court exercised its discretion to address the claim and held that the record supported the finding that DCS made reasonable and diligent efforts over the course of the case.
The court rejected Mother’s contention that DCS should have provided more services after her release from jail. DCS had offered extensive services for nearly two years before filing the termination petition, and Mother’s limited participation and asserted recent period of sobriety did not erase her longer history. The court also held that sufficient evidence supported best-interests findings: A.L. was in an adoptive placement and faced a risk of future abuse or neglect if returned to Mother, while B.L.’s caregiver was meeting her special medical needs and Mother acknowledged she could not safely meet them.
Key Takeaways
- A parent generally cannot challenge reunification efforts for the first time on appeal, though an appellate court may elect to reach the issue.
- DCS’s efforts are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances; it need not provide every conceivable service or pursue futile measures.
- Recent claimed sobriety did not outweigh Mother’s extended failure to engage in offered services and demonstrate safe parenting capacity.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that reunification-services challenges should be raised promptly in juvenile court, including in response to periodic reasonable-efforts findings. It also illustrates that courts assess the full history of services and parental engagement, rather than treating post-incarceration efforts in isolation.
For best interests, the opinion confirms that adoption-related permanency, safety concerns, and a caregiver’s ability to meet a child’s particular needs can support termination even where a parent points to recent improvement.