In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.S.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.S. ── Case No.: 1 CA-JV 25-0170 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 25, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.S. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0170 FILED 03-25-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD43029 The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Higley By David W. Bell Counsel for Appellant Maria S. Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Marika J. Hodge Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Amanda Adams Counsel for Appellee D.S.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.S. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Maria S. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to D.S. (“Child”) on the statutory grounds of mental illness and fifteen months’ out-of-home placement.1 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8- 533(B)(3), (8)(c). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We review the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior court’s order. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547, 549, ¶ 7 (App. 2010). ¶3 Mother is the biological parent of Child, who was born in 2017. Mother has been determined to be seriously mentally ill (“SMI”) and has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. In May 2023, Mother voluntarily checked herself in for inpatient psychiatric treatment, bringing Child with her. The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) placed Child in a foster home and filed a dependency petition based on Mother’s inability to care for Child while in treatment. ¶4 The superior court found Child dependent and ordered a family reunification case plan. After being discharged from inpatient treatment, Mother moved to a transitional living center. DCS provided Mother with various rehabilitative and reunification services, including psychological consultations; a psychological evaluation; parenting skills services, including Family Connections and the Nurturing Parenting Program (“NPP”); and in-person and virtual supervised visitation. Child remained in foster care throughout the dependency. ¶5 Mother participated in the services and worked to address her mental health. Mother used two providers for SMI services. She also 1 The superior court also terminated the parental rights of the alleged biological fathers, D.F. and John Doe. They are not parties to this appeal. 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.S. Decision of the Court received three NPP referrals and twice participated in that program. However, her case manager was concerned about Mother’s ability to understand all the information in the NPP and the referrals were ultimately closed. NPP provided several reasons for the closure, including that Mother “showed regression from previous assessment scores,” “rel[ied] on her daughter for emotional support multiple times,” and expressed that her “idea of safety was keeping [Child] home full-time and not allowing her to engage with others.” ¶6 Mother also participated in Family Connections, a service to help Mother establish herself in a permanent home. A