In Re Dependency as to A.O.

── In Re Dependency as to A.O. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 30, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 A.O. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0146 FILED 04-30-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD536046 The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Ashley P., Apache Junction Appellant Slaton Roebuck PLLC, Scottsdale By Sandra L. Slaton Counsel for Appellant Leah M. David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Higley By David W. Bell Counsel for Appellee  IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.O. Decision of the Court Maricopa County Office of Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Amanda L. Adams Counsel for Appellee Child MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 Leah M. (“Grandmother”) and Ashley P. (“Aunt”) (collectively with Grandmother, “Petitioners”) both petitioned the juvenile court to have A.O. (“Child”) declared dependent as to Richard O. (“Father”). The juvenile court denied those petitions. Petitioners appeal. Because the record supports the juvenile court’s decision, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Melissa O. (“Mother”) had Child in August 2017. Mother died in August 2023, when Child was six years old. Police determined Mother committed suicide, but Petitioners believe Father killed her. They also believe Child, who has a heart condition known as Tetralogy of Fallot, is medically fragile and may be critically ill because of Father’s alleged medical neglect. ¶3 In December 2023, Grandmother petitioned for in loco parentis legal decision-making authority, and Aunt petitioned for visitation. Those cases were consolidated and remain active in the family court. ¶4 In October 2024, Grandmother filed a dependency petition. The juvenile court ordered the Department of Child Safety (“Department”) to investigate her allegations of abuse and neglect. An investigator with the Department interviewed Father, Child, Child’s half sibling, Grandmother, and Aunt. The Department reported to the court that Father was meeting all of Child’s basic medical, behavioral health, and parenting needs. The Department concluded Father’s home was safe and appropriate, and it did not observe any signs that Father abused alcohol. The Department recommended Child remain in Father’s custody. ¶5 At the initial dependency hearing in November 2024, the Department asked to be excused from the case, and Child’s attorney moved 2  IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO A.O. Decision of the Court to dismiss the dependency. The juvenile court dismissed that petition. Grandmother petitioned for special action relief; we declined jurisdiction. ¶6 In March and April 2025, Petitioners filed new dependency petitions. Their petitions made similar allegations: (1) Father neglected Child’s medical and behavioral health needs; (2) Father abused alcohol; and (3) Father physically, mentally, and emotionally abused Child. ¶7 The juvenile court ordered the Department to conduct another investigation. The Department’s again recommended that Father maintain custody of Child. The Department’s investigator noted that the Department had interviewed Child for the fifth time, and Child “has not disclosed maltreatment[.]” The investigator expressed concern that expos