In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.G.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.G. ── Case No.: 1 CA-JV 25-0128 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 10, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 A.G. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0128 FILED 03-10-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD42831 The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Davida G., Phoenix Appellant Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Jamie R. Heller Advisory Counsel for Appellant Davida G. Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Yu-Shan Kuo Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Amanda Adams Counsel for Appellee A.G.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.G. 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 Davida G. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order terminating her parental rights to A.G. (“Child”). See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 We view 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 and Ricardo G. (“Father”) are the biological parents of Child, who was born in 2023.1 Shortly after Child was born, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) petitioned the superior court to find Child dependent as to Mother, alleging Mother had a significant history of substance abuse; gave birth to Child substance-exposed to methamphetamines, amphetamines, and gabapentin; neglected Child; and was “unable or unwilling to provide proper and effective parental care.” Previously, Mother’s parental rights to three other children were terminated, and she “lost custody” of two other children in 2021. Child was placed with paternal grandmother, where two of Mother’s other children are also in out-of-home placement. ¶4 In April 2023, the superior court found Child dependent “based on [M]other’s failure to provide [Child] with a safe and appropriate home environment free from illicit substances.” ¶5 In January 2025, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights based upon her substance abuse and Child’s time in an out-of-home placement. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (B)(8)(b). ¶6 At the termination adjudication hearing, a case manager testified that DCS offered Mother “supervised visits, substance abuse 1 The superior court also terminated Father’s parental rights to Child, but he is not a party to this appeal. 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.G. Decision of the Court services, [F]amily [C]onnections, [and] [N]urturing [P]arenting” services. However, in the months leading up to trial, Mother did not participate in treatment services. A progress report showed that three services were closed based on Mother’s disengagement between November 2020 and November 2023. ¶7 The DCS case manager also testified Mother was referred to twice-weekly random urinalysis testing but failed to test with the providers DCS referred her to. Individual screening reports demonstrated Mother did not attend drug testing between September 2024 and July 2025. Although Mother emailed DCS stating that she was “consistently doing [her urinalysis tests] and attending classes,”