In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.L.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.L., K.L, D.L,
G.L., and J.L.

No. 1 CA-JV 24-0107
FILED 04-01-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD42635
The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Higley
By David W. Bell
Counsel for Appellant Mother

Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Mesa
By Seth Draper
Counsel for Appellant Father

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa
By Ingeet Pandya
Counsel for Appellee DCS

Law Office of Marcus F. Westervelt, Phoenix
By Marcus F. Westervelt
Counsel for Appellee Children
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Amanda L. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
denying her motion to continue the termination hearing. Because the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion, we
affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Heath L.1 (“Father”) (together, “the Parents”)
were married and shared five children. In February 2023, the Department
of Child Safety (“Department”) filed a dependency petition alleging the
Parents neglected their children by not providing a stable living
environment. The Department also alleged the Parents were unable to
safely parent due to substance abuse.

¶3 While the dependency petition was pending, the Department
offered various services to Mother, including substance abuse assessment
and treatment. Mother completed two drug tests, both of which came back
positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. But Mother did not schedule
an appointment for substance abuse assessment and treatment at that time.
In May 2023, the juvenile court found the children dependent.

¶4 Three months later, the juvenile court ordered Mother to
submit to hair follicle drug testing. She did not do so. In September 2023,
Mother completed a substance abuse assessment and received a
recommended treatment plan, but she did not follow through with that
plan. The Department also referred Mother to services to help find
employment and housing for her family, but she did not engage with those
services. Mother also did not submit to drug testing during this time.

1 We address Father’s appeal in a separate opinion. See Ariz. R. Civ.
App. P. 28(c); Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(h).

2
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

¶5 In January 2024, the juvenile court changed the case plan from
family reunification to termination and adoption. The Department
petitioned to terminate Mother’s rights, alleging she could not discharge
parental responsibilities due to prolonged substance abuse and the children
had been in an out-of-home placement for nine months. See A.R.S. § 8-
533(B)(3), (8)(a). The court scheduled an initial termination hearing for
February 15, 2024, and a full-blown termination hearing for May 8, 2024.

¶6 The day after the juvenile court changed the case plan, Mother
went to a recovery center and completed a seven-day drug detox treatment.
In February 2024, a different facility discharged Mother from another detox
treatment. The Department again referred Mother to services for substance
abuse assessment and treatment, but she did not participate. In April 2024,
Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl.

¶7 About two weeks before the May 2024 termination hearing,
Mother requested a sixty-day continuance, asserting that her recent
participation in services gave rise to extraordinary circumstances
warranting a continuance. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 353(b)(4). The court
denied Mother’s request, proceeded with the termination hearing as
scheduled, and terminated Mother’s parental rights.

¶8 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 8-
235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Mother appeals only the denial of her motion to continue.
Mother argues the court abused its discretion because, by the time of trial,
she was participating in substance abuse treatment, and her circumstances
began improving.

¶10 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining
the juvenile court’s decision, Jesus M. v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz.
278, 282 ¶ 13 (App. 2002), and review the denial of a motion to continue for
an abuse of discretion. See Yavapai Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-9365, 157 Ariz.
497, 499 (App. 1988).

¶11 Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 353(b)(2)
provides that a contested termination hearing must occur “no later than 90
days after the initial termination hearing.” But the juvenile court “may
continue the hearing for no more than 30 days beyond the 90-day limit if it
finds that the continuance is necessary for the full, fair, and proper
presentation of evidence and the best interests of the child would not be

3
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.L., et al.
Decision of the Court

adversely affected[.]” Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 353(b)(3). The court may also
continue the hearing for a longer period after finding “extraordinary
circumstances.” Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 353(b)(4). The party requesting a
continuance must identify the extraordinary circumstances “no later than 5
days after discovering them.” Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 353(b)(4).

¶12 Because Mother contested termination and the initial
termination hearing occurred on February 15, 2024, the court had to hold
the final termination hearing no later than May 15, 2024. See Ariz. R.P. Juv.
Ct. 353(b)(2). At the time of Mother’s motion, the court had scheduled the
termination hearing for May 8, 2024. Because Mother requested a sixty-day
continuance from that date, she needed to provide evidence from which the
court could find extraordinary circumstances. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.
353(b)(4). Mother argued that her “newly found quest for sobriety” and
“recent participation in services” warranted a sixty-day continuance.

¶13 The juvenile court properly denied a continuance. Mother
had ample time to address her substance abuse issues before termination—
the Department referred her to services, including substance abuse
treatment and drug testing, on several occasions. Despite this, Mother did
not take steps to address her issues until the case plan changed in January
2024, almost a year after the Department intervened. Mother completed
only three drug tests during this case—all of which were positive for illegal
substances—with the last positive test occurring only a month before trial.
That Mother began making progress towards recovery a short time before
the termination hearing did not constitute extraordinary circumstances
justifying a sixty-day continuance. The juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶14 We affirm.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

4