In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.M. and I.M.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.M. and I.M. ── Case No.: 1 CA-JV 25-0133 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 G.M. and I.M. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0133 FILED 03-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD38338 The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson By Laura J. Huff Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety John L. Popilek, P.C., Scottsdale By John L. Popilek Counsel for Appellant Charlie M. MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.M. and I.M. Decision of the Court G A S S, Judge: ¶1 This appeal arises from the second dependency the Department of Child Safety (DCS) filed against mother and father. DCS dismissed the first and released the children to mother. In this one, the superior court terminated both parents’ rights to their 2 children under the 15-months-in-care ground. See A.R.S. § 8-533.B.8(c). Mother did not contest the termination and is not a party to this appeal. ¶2 On appeal, father argues “there is no evidence that [DCS] made a ‘diligent effort’ to provide reunification services for [f]ather, a mandatory component of a ‘time-in-care’ ground for” termination. To the contrary, the superior court did not err when it found DCS provided father with “an array of reunification services and had those services been successfully completed, reunification likely would have occurred.” The court thus affirms. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶3 Because the superior court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, the testimony, and the credibility of the witnesses, the court will not reweigh the evidence. In re J.C., 259 Ariz. 60, 68 ¶ 34 (App. 2024). ¶4 Father is the biological parent of twins, both born in December 2018. While mother was pregnant with the twins, father was arrested and ultimately pled guilty to possession of narcotic drugs for sale (fentanyl) and was sentenced to 7 years in the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, Reentry. Mother gave birth to the twins while father was incarcerated for that sentence. I. DCS filed the first dependency petition before the twins turned 3 years old. ¶5 In September 2021, DCS filed the first dependency petition as to father and mother because it found mother was abusing methamphetamine, was trading food stamps for illegal substances, and was not caring for the children. At that point, father was incarcerated and had no relationship with the twins. DCS offered father paternity testing, which showed he was the father. DCS then agreed to provide father services and also asked him to seek out resources at the Department of Corrections because DCS cannot offer parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and other services to incarcerated people. Eight months later, DCS voluntarily dismissed the first dependency because of mother’s progress. 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.M. and I.M. Decision of the Court II. DCS filed the second dependency petition when the twins were around 4 and a half years old. ¶6 In June 2023, DCS filed a second dependency petition because mother was abusing substances again, could not provide