In Re Dependency as to B.H.

── In Re Dependency as to B.H. ── Case No.: 1 CA-JV 25-0132 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 12, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0132 FILED 03-12-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD44971 The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL John L. Popilek, PC, Scottsdale By John L. Popilek Counsel for Appellant B.H. Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson By Laura J. Huff Counsel for Appellee DCS Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Mesa By Seth Draper Counsel for Appellee Michael H.  IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined. C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 B.H. appeals from the superior court’s order declining to adjudicate her dependent. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 B.H., now 17 years old, is the biological daughter of Michael H. (“Father”) and Nicole B. (“Mother”). Pursuant to family court orders, Father and Mother have shared equal parenting time of B.H. and her twin sister since 2011 on a week-on, week-off basis. Father and Mother have struggled to co-parent and have been involved in further family court proceedings. Those proceedings were ongoing when B.H. filed this private dependency in March 2025.1 ¶3 Starting in December 2023, B.H. refused to visit Father because she “felt uncomfortable” there and experienced emotional distress at the thought of doing so. In July 2024, a therapeutic interventionist was appointed to help with reunifying B.H. and Father. The interventionist met with the family over the course of six months without resolution before Father decided to no longer participate because he did not trust the interventionist. ¶4 In October 2024, B.H. decided to resume parenting time with Father. At some point, he asked her to turn her phone’s location settings on. When she refused, Father jumped on her, snatched the phone from her hands, and locked her in her bedroom for a few minutes. After the door was unlocked, she ran out of the house, but Father grabbed her and held 1 Father moved to supplement the record with a December 2025 minute entry in family court indicating B.H. was living with Father, which he argued mooted the appeal. Although we granted the motion to supplement, the minute entry does not provide clarity on the current parenting time orders or B.H.’s view of those orders. Thus, the minute entry does not moot this appeal. 2  IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H. Decision of the Court her briefly before releasing her. B.H. ran to bystanders and used their phone to contact Mother and police. Although B.H. subsequently refused to go to Father’s house during his parenting time, she nevertheless went to the house while he was there to see other family members. ¶5 In March 2025, B.H. filed this dependency petition alleging abuse and neglect by Father and Mother’s inability to protect B.H. from Father during his parenting time. B.H. specifically cited the October 2024 incident and alleged Father used marijuana excessively. ¶6 The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) investigated the allegations and, after visiting Father’s home, concluded the claims were unsubstantiated. DCS noted “no identified safety threats to the child’s