Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Kent E. Cattani](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10807961/in-re-dependency-as-to-bh/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Dependency as to B.H.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-JV 25-0132

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Kent E. Cattani](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/6186/kent-e-cattani/)

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H.

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0132
FILED 03-12-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD44971
The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, PC, Scottsdale
By John L. Popilek
Counsel for Appellant B.H.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Laura J. Huff
Counsel for Appellee DCS

Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Mesa
By Seth Draper
Counsel for Appellee Michael H.
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 B.H. appeals from the superior court’s order declining to
adjudicate her dependent. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 B.H., now 17 years old, is the biological daughter of Michael
H. (“Father”) and Nicole B. (“Mother”). Pursuant to family court orders,
Father and Mother have shared equal parenting time of B.H. and her twin
sister since 2011 on a week-on, week-off basis. Father and Mother have
struggled to co-parent and have been involved in further family court
proceedings. Those proceedings were ongoing when B.H. filed this private
dependency in March 2025.1

¶3 Starting in December 2023, B.H. refused to visit Father
because she “felt uncomfortable” there and experienced emotional distress
at the thought of doing so. In July 2024, a therapeutic interventionist was
appointed to help with reunifying B.H. and Father. The interventionist met
with the family over the course of six months without resolution before
Father decided to no longer participate because he did not trust the
interventionist.

¶4 In October 2024, B.H. decided to resume parenting time with
Father. At some point, he asked her to turn her phone’s location settings
on. When she refused, Father jumped on her, snatched the phone from her
hands, and locked her in her bedroom for a few minutes. After the door
was unlocked, she ran out of the house, but Father grabbed her and held

1 Father moved to supplement the record with a December 2025
minute entry in family court indicating B.H. was living with Father, which
he argued mooted the appeal. Although we granted the motion to
supplement, the minute entry does not provide clarity on the current
parenting time orders or B.H.’s view of those orders. Thus, the minute
entry does not moot this appeal.

2
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H.
Decision of the Court

her briefly before releasing her. B.H. ran to bystanders and used their
phone to contact Mother and police. Although B.H. subsequently refused
to go to Father’s house during his parenting time, she nevertheless went to
the house while he was there to see other family members.

¶5 In March 2025, B.H. filed this dependency petition alleging
abuse and neglect by Father and Mother’s inability to protect B.H. from
Father during his parenting time. B.H. specifically cited the October 2024
incident and alleged Father used marijuana excessively.

¶6 The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) investigated the
allegations and, after visiting Father’s home, concluded the claims were
unsubstantiated. DCS noted “no identified safety threats to the child’s
safety” and “no disclosures by the child, that the child is in present or
impending danger when visiting father.” B.H. stated that Father had not
physically abused her, and she indicated that she was not fearful of Father.
DCS thus concluded there were no grounds for a dependency.

¶7 At the August 2025 dependency adjudication, B.H., Mother,
Father, and the therapeutic interventionist testified. No witnesses
contested that Mother was a safe parent. B.H. testified she felt
“uncomfortable” being at Father’s house and did not want to be forced to
visit because she was happy at Mother’s house. Father admitted having
yelled at B.H., and he acknowledged that he used marijuana in lieu of
painkillers. But he also testified that he used marijuana safely and was not
abusive to B.H. The therapeutic interventionist testified that Father was
“minimally adequate to parent” and that there was no evidence of physical
neglect. Finally, DCS opined that the dependency should be dismissed.

¶8 After considering the evidence presented and arguments by
counsel, the court issued a seven-page minute entry in which the court
ruled that there was no basis for a dependency finding and dismissed the
petition. The court concluded Mother was a safe parent and that there was
insufficient evidence of abuse justifying a dependency finding. B.H. timely
appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶9 B.H. argues the court erred by dismissing her dependency.
We review the superior court’s dismissal of a dependency action for an
abuse of discretion, Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 13
(App. 2016), and we accept the court’s findings of fact unless clearly
erroneous, Michael M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 230, 233, ¶ 10
(App. 2007).

3
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H.
Decision of the Court

¶10 A “dependent child” is one who is adjudicated to be “[i]n
need of proper and effective parental care and control and who has no
parent or guardian . . . willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care
and control.” A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(i). A dependent child may also be one
“whose home is unfit by reason of abuse, neglect, cruelty or depravity by a
parent.” A.R.S. § 8-201(15)(a)(iii). In addressing a dependency claim, the
superior court considers relevant circumstances as they exist at the time of
the dependency adjudication hearing. Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 48, ¶ 1.

¶11 Reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s ruling
dismissing the dependency. There is no dispute that Mother was a safe
parent. It was also undisputed that Mother was willing to exercise parental
care and control. B.H. and Mother’s testimony indicated B.H. felt safe with
Mother and that Mother was able to take care of her needs.

¶12 B.H. contends she should nevertheless be found dependent
because Mother was unable to protect B.H. in light of the family court order
granting Father parenting time. But that argument ignores the statutory
definition of a dependent child, which requires a finding that there is “no
parent or guardian” willing to provide proper and effective care. A.R.S. §
8-201(15)(a)(i). To the extent there are concerns with the family court’s
parenting time order, nothing precludes Mother from seeking relief in
family court. See Meryl R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 24, 26, ¶ 10
(App. 1999) (noting that a dependency is correctly dismissed when the child
has a parent willing and fit to parent and there are no existing exigent
circumstances or legal barriers to prevent the parent from seeking relief in
the appropriate forum). Even without considering Father’s conduct,
reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s finding denying the
dependency because Mother was willing and fit to parent B.H.

¶13 Focusing on Father’s conduct, B.H. has shown no abuse of
discretion in the court’s assessment. B.H. points to Father’s alleged abuse
of marijuana, claiming the court erred by finding there was insufficient
evidence of his marijuana abuse. But ample evidence supports the court’s
findings, including Father’s testimony that he used marijuana safely, and
DCS’s report that allegations of marijuana abuse were unsubstantiated.

¶14 B.H. also asserts that the superior court should have found
her dependent based on the October 2024 incident. But the court
considered that incident and concluded that, even assuming the incident
happened as B.H. described, there had been no other physical incidents
between B.H. and Father, and B.H. continued to voluntarily visit Father’s
home to see other family members while Father was there. Additionally,

4
IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO B.H.
Decision of the Court

DCS reports indicated B.H. was not fearful of Father. Although the
interventionist’s testimony reflected that Father may struggle with helping
B.H. avoid potential emotional issues, the interventionist’s testimony also
reflected that Father was minimally adequate as a parent and willing to
attend therapy with B.H.

¶15 B.H. is effectively requesting that this court reweigh the
evidence on appeal, which we will not do. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar
O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004) (reiterating that the superior court “is
in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the
credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts”). Accordingly, and for
the above reasons, her claim of error fails.

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm.

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

5