Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department E
Not for Publication-Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 88(G); ARCAP 28
Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Cause No. JD 20985 The Honorable Joan Sinclair, Judge
Denise L. Carroll Scottsdale Attorney for Appellant.
Thomas C. Horne, Attorney General Phoenix By Michael F. Valenzuela, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Allison Stavris, Guardian Ad Litem for C.D. Scottsdale.
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge
¶1 Suzann T. (Suzann) appeals from the juvenile court's order severing her parental rights to her child, C.d. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Suzann discovered that she was pregnant with CD. on February 16, 2011, when she was in jail on a charge that was later dismissed. She told a doctor in the jail that she had last used methamphetamine on December 31, 2010 and she was concerned about the baby's health. Suzann was arrested again in April 2011 while pregnant, after she broke into a trailer in the backyard of a residence looking for food and items to sell. She spent approximately two weeks in jail, and was charged with one count of third degree burglary, a class 4 felony.
¶3 In September 2011, Suzann was arrested on drug charges filed in 2011 alleging that she possessed and sold methamphetamine and possessed drug paraphernalia in 2009. She was released on October 8, 2011, and CD. was born the next day. At the time of C.D.'s birth, Suzann was living with C.D.'s biological father, Lee. Lee also had a history of using methamphetamine.
¶4 Child Protective Services (CPS) received a referral concerning CD. the day after his birth. CD. was not born drug-exposed, but Suzann admitted having used methamphetamine when she was three to four weeks pregnant, prior to knowing she was pregnant. CPS recommended in-home placement for CD., conditioned upon the presence of one of two persons designated a "safety monitor" in the home at all times. Police did a welfare check on October 27, 2011 and a safety monitor was not present in the home. CD. was removed from Suzann's custody and placed in a foster home by the end of October 2011. CPS filed a dependency petition and, shortly thereafter, the juvenile court found that CD. was a dependent child as to Suzann.
¶5 The juvenile court ordered concurrent case plans for CD.: family reunification and severance and adoption. The court further ordered CPS to provide the following services to Suzann: 1) random urinalysis testing, 2) substance abuse assessment and treatment through TERROS, 3) parent aide services, 4) a psychological consultation and recommended services following the psychological consultation, 5) transportation, and 6) visitation.
¶6 Suzann missed her first urinalysis test on October 13, 2011 but testified that she had still been in the hospital after giving birth. She missed three more urinalysis tests on October 18, 24, and 27 of 2011. Thereafter, she did not miss any more requested urinalysis tests, and all of the tests came back negative, except that tests on November 2, 2011 and November 23, 2011 showed up as negative but diluted. Altogether, Suzann tested negative for drugs and alcohol without dilution on thirty-five occasions from October 19, 2011 to June 26, 2012, about an eight month period.
¶7 By the end of October 2011, CPS had made the referral for parent aide services and set up visitation. Suzann completed an assessment with TERROS and completed TERROS's substance abuse education program by December 2011. TERROS assigned Suzann a recovery coach, but she met with that individual just one time and rejected further assistance of a recovery coach, claiming that she had had "very little drug use." Suzann had a psychological consultation with Dr. Bluth in December 2011, and then a psychological evaluation with Dr. Bluth in ...