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
(Not for Publication — 103 (G) Ariz. r.p. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28 ARCAP)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
DOWNIE, Judge.
¶1 Carla H. ("Mother") challenges the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
¶2 In December 2010, Child Protective Services ("CPS") removed R.H., born in 1998, and K.H., born in 2003, from Mother's custody. The children were placed with a relative and subsequently found to be dependent.
¶3 In November 2011, the Arizona Department of Economic Security ("ADES") moved to terminate Mother's parental rights on three grounds: (1) inability to discharge parental responsibilities due to chronic substance abuse; (2) out-of-home placement for nine months or longer and substantial neglect or willful refusal to remedy the circumstances leading to the children's removal; and (3) abandonment and failure to maintain a normal parental relationship.2 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 8-533(B)(1), (B)(3), (B)(8)(a). In March 2012, ADES amended its motion to allege one additional ground: that the children had been in an out-of-home placement for 15 months or longer, Mother was unable to remedy the circumstances causing that placement, and Mother would not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).
¶4 At the contested severance trial in April 2012, Mother, who was 43, testified she began using methamphetamine when she was 25 years old "on and off," but denied using methamphetamine within the last five years. A CPS case manager testified that Mother tested positive for methamphetamine during the dependency proceedings, failed to consistently test as required, failed to participate in sufficient counseling to remedy concerns about her parenting, and did not consistently participate in parent aide services. Mother also failed to provide CPS with proof of employment and stable housing and failed to successfully complete TERROS, the substance abuse treatment plan.
¶5 The court found that ADES had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights should be severed based on chronic substance abuse and time in care (9 and 15 months). See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3), (B)(8)(a), (B)(8)(c). The court also found that ADES had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship would be in the children's best interests.
¶6 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-235.
DISCUSSION
¶7 Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings and conclusions as to each of the statutory grounds for termination. Although the court terminated Mother's rights on three independent grounds, we will affirm the termination order if any one of the statutory grounds was proven. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3, 53 P.3d 203, 205 (App. 2002) (citation omitted).
¶8 "To justify termination of the parent-child relationship, the trial court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one of the statutory grounds set out in section 8-533, and also that termination is in the best interest of the child."3 Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12, 995 P.2d 682, 685 (2000). Because the juvenile court is "in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the parties, observe the parties, and make appropriate factual findings," Pima County Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543, 546, 744 P.2d 455, 458 (App. 1987), we do not reweigh the evidence, but look only to determine if there is evidence to support the court's ruling, Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JV-132905, 186 Ariz. 607, 609, 925 P.2d 748, 750 (App. 1996) (citation omitted). "We will not disturb the juvenile court's disposition absent an abuse of discretion or unless the court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous, i.e., there is no reasonable evidence to support them." Id.; accord Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2, 982 P.2d 1290, 1291 (App. 1998) (citations omitted).
¶9 Mother contends her history of substance abuse does not prevent her from discharging parental responsibilities. She denies current or recent drug usage and asserts that, even considering the positive drug tests, her substance use has "not interfered with her parenting."
¶10 The juvenile court found that Mother had "not yet truly acknowledged or substantially addressed her substance abuse and her addiction issues." Mother "provided less than one-half of the tests she was required to provide, and even some of those tests were positive for meth and/or alcohol." Indeed, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine while at the same time denying she had used the drug for a number of years. Mother also provided misleading intake information to TERROS on a substance abuse assessment, minimizing her drug usage. This resulted in her being recommended for education classes instead of a more intensive outpatient program for substance abuse. The juvenile court stated:
This record demonstrates both that Mother has a history of chronic abuse of drugs, and the reasonable belief that Mother's use of drugs will continue for a prolonged and indeterminate period given Mother's failure to participate substantially in, and complete, the appropriate treatment. This condition has persisted over a long period of time and is lingering. Mother's drug use continues even though she has been provided significant services to help her remedy this impediment to reunifying with and parenting her Children.
¶11 The record also establishes that Mother's substance abuse significantly impaired her parenting, and it amply supports the following findings by the juvenile court:
Simply stated, for many years now, Mother has had, and continues to have, a lingering drug addiction. Mother has not demonstrated that she is willing or able to take the steps needed to act in the best interests of the Children. In the face of termination of her parental rights to the Children, Mother continued to use drugs. Mother's substance abuse negatively affects her ability to parent; it compromises her very ability to provide safe, stable and appropriate care for the Children. The Children both described often being hungry when they were in Mother's care, relying on food from grandmother, not always being supervised by Mother who slept a lot, and being yelled at frequently by Mother.
¶12 Reasonable and sufficient evidence supports the severance order based on Mother's substance abuse. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3) (court may sever rights based on an inability to discharge parental responsibilities due to chronic substance abuse). We therefore do not address the additional grounds for termination found by the juvenile court. See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 27, 995 P.2d at 687 (because court affirmed one ground for termination, it need not determine whether severance was justified on additional grounds found by juvenile court).
CONCLUSION
¶13 We affirm the termination of Mother's parental rights.
MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge, PHILIP HALL, Judge, concurring.
