Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County JD509933 The Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa, Judge.
The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale By Alison Stavris Counsel for Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Phoenix By Amanda Holguin Counsel for Appellee Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Judge John C. Gemmill delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.
¶1 Danielle S. ("Mother") appeals the juvenile court's order terminating her parental relationship with minor child, R.S. ("Son"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Son was born exposed to methamphetamine in 2012. He was taken into custody by the Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") soon after his birth. Several days later, Mother completed two urinalysis tests and the results were negative. Mother insisted she did not abuse drugs and claimed that someone caused her to ingest the methamphetamine while she was asleep.
¶3 After a dependency hearing in February 2012, Son was found to be dependent, and the case plan goal was family reunification with a target date of August 2012.
¶4 ADES provided Mother with various services to aid in the reunification case plan. Specifically, Mother was offered substance abuse treatment through TERROS, random urinalysis testing through Treatment Assessment Screening Center ("TASC"), a psychological evaluation, visitation, transportation, and parent aid services. Mother eventually completed her TERROS program and consistently tested negative on her TASC drug tests.
¶5 Son was returned to Mother's care within six months. Eleven days later, Mother again tested positive for methamphetamine. Despite Mother's positive test, ADES agreed to allow in-home placement with Mother to continue, conditioned on Mother demonstrating that she was drug free through subsequent drug testing. Mother did not comply, however, and failed to provide urine samples over the next three days. Mother claims she was unable to test on several occasions due to blood in her urine, but she did not produce a required doctor's note verifying this condition. In October 2012, ADES again removed Son from Mother's care.
¶6 After Son's removal, Mother was required to participate in several reunification services. Mother was instructed to find someone to act as a safety monitor, to acquire stable housing and income, enroll in TASC, enroll in an aftercare program,  and complete scheduled visitations. Mother only complied with a portion of her case plan, however. She did ...