## Facts

- Alma S. (“Mother”) had children J.R. and I.R. and lived with I.R.’s father, who routinely abused Mother and both children.
- While Mother was at work, the father severely beat two-month-old I.R.; when Mother returned, she did not take I.R. for medical care until relatives took him the next day.
- Hospital staff found multiple injuries to I.R. (including fractures and bruising) and bruises on two-year-old J.R.
- The Department of Child Safety removed the children; they were adjudicated dependent.
- Over approximately eighteen months, Mother participated in services, including a parent aide, drug testing (which she passed), and a psychological evaluation.
- The psychologist diagnosed mood and personality disorders and substance-use disorders in remission, and noted Mother’s poor judgment in choosing abusive partners and tendency to minimize the risks they posed.
- The juvenile court found statutory grounds for termination (parental unfitness) under A.R.S. § 8-533(B) and concluded termination was in the children’s best interests because their placements met their needs, the placement was adoptive, and the children were adoptable even if the current placement did not adopt.
- Mother did not appeal the unfitness finding, but challenged only the best-interests determination.

## Issues

1. What is the proper “best interests of the child” inquiry under A.R.S. § 8-533(B) once a statutory ground for termination (unfitness) has been established?
2. Must the juvenile court consider the totality of the circumstances at the time of severance, including the child’s adoptability and the parent’s rehabilitation?
3. Did the court of appeals err by requiring an additional showing that the parent would likely be unable to parent effectively in the near future at the best-interests stage?

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the juvenile court’s termination order.
- The Court held that best interests must be assessed under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the severance determination, including the child’s adoptability and the parent’s rehabilitation.
- The Court rejected a heightened best-interests standard that effectively required re-proving ongoing parental incapacity after unfitness was already established.
- The Court concluded sufficient evidence supported best interests based on the children’s stable, needs-meeting placement, the prospect of adoption, general adoptability, and continuing concerns about Mother’s protective capacities.

## Legal Principles

- Termination proceedings under A.R.S. § 8-533(B) proceed in two steps: (1) proof of a statutory ground functioning as a proxy for parental unfitness; then (2) a child-centered best-interests inquiry.
- After unfitness is established, it may be presumed the interests of parent and child diverge; the best-interests inquiry focuses on the child’s interests as separate from the parent’s.
- Best interests is satisfied if either (1) the child will benefit from severance, or (2) the child will be harmed if severance is denied.
- Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances at the time of severance; relevant factors include adoptability, the suitability and stability of the child’s placement, and the parent’s rehabilitation, none of which is automatically dispositive.
- A best-interests finding may rest on evidence that the child’s current placement meets the child’s needs and offers permanency through adoption, including evidence of general adoptability even if a specific placement fails.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court clarified that, once parental unfitness is proven, best interests under A.R.S. § 8-533(B) is determined by the totality of circumstances at the time of severance, with the analysis centered on the child’s welfare rather than a renewed test of parental fitness.


Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146 (2018)