THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24

MEMORANDUM DECISION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶1 Aaron C. ("Father") appeals the court's termination of his parental rights to his daughter. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father is the parent of A.G., born in July 2010.1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") filed a dependency petition shortly after A.G.'s birth, alleging that A.G.'s mother abused and neglected her. The petition also alleged that Father neglected his daughter due to substance abuse and his inability or unwillingness to parent her. The petition was later amended to allege that Father neglected his daughter due to domestic violence. The court ordered the child dependent as to Father in August 2010. Father received the following services: enrollment in Southwest Behavioral Health Services; Arizona Families First; substance-abuse assessment and education; urinalysis testing; parenting education; psychological evaluation; in-home support services; parent aide for supervised visits; AHCCCS/foodstamps; case management services; team decision making meetings; and child and family team meetings.

¶3 In January 2011, Father informed Child Protective Services ("CPS") that he intended to cease reunification efforts and wanted his sister to adopt A.G. CPS made repeated efforts to contact Father's sister by phone. CPS then sent a certified letter to Father's sister, and while the letter showed it was received, Father's sister never responded. Father missed several visits with A.G. and failed to attend his re-evaluation appointment with Dr. Wagner, a psychologist. Because Father had missed two appointments with Dr. Wagner, Dr. Wagner would not schedule another evaluation appointment with him.

¶4 In April 2011, ADES moved to terminate the parent-child relationship between Father and A.G. The juvenile court held a three-day severance trial in August and September 2011.

¶5 Dr. Wagner testified at the trial that he performed an examination of Father in August 2010. Dr. Wagner opined that Father could not parent at the time of the examination, and he believed Father required "services and treatments." During the exam, Father revealed that he had a history of drug use, and most recently used marijuana. Dr. Wagner recommended that Father: submit to DNA testing to verify paternity; continue with random urinalysis testing; be referred to an outpatient rehabilitation program for alcohol and drug abuse; participate in an ACT parenting program for fathers; maintain full-time employment; participate in supervised visits with the child three to four times a week; enter a "No Woman Contract" for at least a year, in order to enable Father to focus "all of his energy . . . into helping himself develop[] what he needs to"; and, join Narcotics Anonymous ("NA") or Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") and obtain a sponsor. Dr. Wagner also recommended that Father's behavior be monitored over the four to six months following the examination.

¶6 Dr. Wagner testified that, during a debriefing in January 2011, Father informed him that he had not completed the ACT parenting class, but Father had completed an alternative parenting class and the DNA test.2 Father was also participating in supervised visits four times per week with the child and reported that he had joined a substance abuse educational group. Father did not follow Dr. Wagner's "No Woman Contract," as he had begun another relationship and was married. Father was unable to find employment, but maintained that he was looking for employment, and Father had not joined an AA-oriented recovery group.

¶7 Prescott Police Officer B. testified that he responded to a call made by A.G.'s mother in February 2010. A.G.'s mother was calling to report "threats" made by Father. The officer testified that A.G.'s mother "was afraid [Father] was going to go to her house, murder her and her unborn child, and then burn the house to the ground." The officer contacted Father by telephone, and Father "admitted to making the threats." Officer B. could not recall whether or not he followed up on the report at a later date, but he testified that the case was eventually dropped by the city prosecutor.

¶8 Prescott Police Officer J. testified that he responded to a complaint made by A.G.'s mother in April 2010. Officer J. stated that A.G.'s mother made the complaint in-person in the lobby of the police department, and she reported that Father was violating an order of protection by contacting her via text message. The officer confirmed that there were, in fact, text messages from Father on A.G.'s mother's cell phone.

¶9 CPS Case Manager Lisa Watts testified that Father had a history of substance abuse and tested positive for THC in the initial stages of the investigation. Watts stated that Father also had a history of abandonment and neglect, due to the abandonment of three previous children, and there existed a history of domestic violence. Father was notified that he was expected to "remedy his substance abuse issues, domestic violence issues, as well as parenting deficits, and the history of abuse and neglect of a child." Watts opined that Father failed to show the "consistency that a child needs." Father informed Watts that "his stress level was too high," and Watts worried that "if he [could not] handle the stress of this case," then he would be unable to "parent a child for the next 18 years." Watts testified that A.G. was under the age of three years, and she had been in out-of-home care for six months or longer. Watts further testified that the circumstances that led to the dependency being filed against Father had not been remedied.

¶10 The court ordered Father's parental rights terminated in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 8-533(B)(8)(b) (Supp. 2011),3 regarding six months out-of-home placement. The court also found that ADES had proven that termination was in A.G.'s best interest.

¶11 Father filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235 (2007).

DISCUSSION

¶12 Father argues that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because CPS did not provide adequate services and Father did not substantially neglect or willfully refuse to remedy the circumstances that caused his daughter to be in out-of-home care.

¶13 "We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court's findings, and if there is any evidence to support the order we must affirm it." Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JD-5312, 178 Ariz. 372, 376, 873 P.2d 710, 714 (App. 1994). ADES must make "a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services." A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8). Further, evidence to support the termination of a parent-child relationship may be established when: the child is under three years of age; the child "has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of six months or longer"; and, "the parent has substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement, including refusal to participate in reunification services offered" by ADES. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b).

¶14 While Father initially participated in some services, he indicated to CPS in January 2011 that he wanted to cease all reunification services. Father completed two psychological evaluations and an intake and evaluation with Southwest Behavioral Services. Southwest Behavioral Services offered him substance abuse assessments and a coping skills class, however, Father did not continue with services at Southwest Behavioral Services. Father also participated in Arizona Families First, but he "consistently denied having substance abuse issues despite the testing indicating otherwise and the history indicating otherwise." Father's case with Arizona Families First was closed after he refused all services in January 2011, but was re-opened after the motion for severance was filed. Father was also referred to Arizona Children's Association, and they reported that Father needed to address "anger issues and parenting issues," and "he tended to spend more time focusing on fighting the system rather than getting [A.G.] back." Father's case with Arizona Children's Association was closed after Father said he did not want to participate in services. The case was later re-opened in May 2011.

¶15 Father never completed intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment nor did he gain employment. Father did not consistently participate in all of his urinalysis tests, and his urinalysis results revealed positive results for THC, opiates, and ETG.4 Father failed to complete any urinalysis testing between March 26, 2011 and May 5, 2011.

¶16 Father participated in visitation until March 2011, at which time he stated he wanted to cease visitation. Even when Father participated, he missed "quite a few visits." Father indicated that he wished to resume visits in late March 2011. Father participated in child and family team meetings, but he was "adversarial and aggressive" and was not consistent with his participation.

¶17 Father did not follow the "No Woman Contract," which was recommended by Dr. Wagner. Instead, Father began a relationship with, and later married, Justina. CPS informed Father that Justina would also need to complete services, but Justina refused services.

¶18 Father also failed to attend AA or NA meetings or obtain a sponsor. Although Father never completed a re-evaluation with Dr. Wagner, he did complete a re-evaluation with another psychologist after the motion for severance had been filed.

¶19 The court found that while Father indicated in January 2011 that he was ending reunification services, visitation continued. Then Father discontinued visitation in early March 2011, but notified the court that he wanted to again participate in reunification services and visitation at the end of March 2011. The court expressed concern that Father's wife, Justina, has "not been investigated by [ADES]" and "has not participated in services due to [Father's] conduct in January [2011]." The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that ADES provided Father with team decision making meetings, child and family team meetings, psychological evaluation, in-home support services, enrollment in Southwest Behavioral Health Services, substance abuse assessment and education, urinalysis testing, parenting education, parent aide for supervised visits, and case management services. The court concluded that while Father "participated in a lot of services" and started services again in late May 2011, that it was "too late for this little child's life." The court found that ADES had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, the basis for termination set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(b). On this record, we conclude that the evidence supported the trial court's determination and the court did not abuse its discretion.

¶20 Father further argues that the trial court erred in determining that severance was in the best interests of his daughter.

¶21 A juvenile court order terminating parental rights must include a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that severance is in the child's best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 41, 110 P.3d 1013, 1022 (2005). When considering a child's best interests, the court must make "a finding as to how the child would benefit from a severance or be harmed by the continuation of the [parental] relationship." Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990) (citations omitted). A current adoptive plan is evidence that a child would benefit from termination. Id. at 6, 804 P.2d at 735. In addition, evidence showing that a child is adoptable supports a finding of termination of parental rights. Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348, 352, 884 P.2d 234, 238 (App. 1994).

¶22 At the severance trial, CPS Case Manager Watts testified that A.G. was "very bonded" with her current placement, and A.G. needed "consistency and permanency." Watts testified that A.G. was a "young child who has had . . . two serious medical conditions." The placement was able to care for all of her needs, including her special needs. The current placement also wished to adopt A.G., but, even if the adoption fell through, Watts opined that A.G. was adoptable. Watts believed A.G. would benefit from severance because she was "at a critical time where the permanency is just essential for her development, emotional, social, physically, and with severance she would have that."

¶23 Additionally, Renee Walden-Shea, an infant mental health therapist, opined that severance was in A.G.'s best interest because Father lacked "the capability to be able to parent a child who has . . . high medical needs [and] who is medically fragile." Walden-Shea testified that she had not "seen any changes from [Father] from the time that he stated that he no longer wanted to see [A.G.]." Walden-Shea stated that "[t]he only change that [she had] seen [was] actually a detriment when he started using prescription medication to help with his pain, which doesn't necessarily help the fact that he [could] parent a child, it only hinders." She opined that it would "be disturbing" to A.G. if visitation between A.G. and Father were resumed. Walden-Shea also testified that A.G. was adoptable and was bonded to her foster family.

¶24 The court concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that A.G. needed permanency, and the court had "to weigh the permanency that she would have in the [f]oster [f]amily's home with the permanency she might have in [Father's] home." The court found that "the permanency needed for [A.G.] as well as the higher possibility of permanency in her [f]oster placement establishes that it's in [A.G.'s] best interest to terminate [Father's] parental rights."

¶25 On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination of Father's parental rights was in A.G.'s best interests.

CONCLUSION

¶26 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court's termination of Father's parental rights to A.G.

PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Presiding Judge, PHILIP HALL, Judge, concurring.