I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
B O B B Y G ., A p p e llan t,

v . AR I Z ONA DE P AR T M E NT OF E C O N O M I C SE C U R I T Y and A L L IS O N G ., A pp el l ees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- J V 2008- 0009

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF PI M A C OU NTY

C aus e N os . 18237399 and 17791100 H o n o rab le S teph en M
. R u b in, Jud g e P ro T em p o re

AFFI RM ED
Fr eder i ck S. K l ei n
T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yPenni e J
. W ambol dt

T h ea M
. G il b ert T ucs on A t t or neyforA ppel l ant

T ucs on A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee A r i zona D e p a rtm e n t o f

E c o n o m ic S e c u rity

T ucs on A t t or neyforM i nor
E S P I N O S A , J u d g e . S EP 30 2008 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWOT h e b ro th e rs h a v e d if f e re n t f a th e rs , a n d th e ya re n o t p a rt ie s to th is a p p e a l. 1 2 ¶1 A pp el l ant B ob by G
. chall eng es t he j uv enil e cou rt ’s order t erm i natin g h is pa r e nt a l r i gh t s t o hi s da ug ht e r , A l l i s on , on gr ou nd s of a ba nd on menta nd a bu s e un de rA
. R. S. § 8- 533( B ) ( 1) and (2)
. H e cont ends t he cour t err oneous l y deni ed hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he p e tit io n to ter m in a te h is p a re n tal rig h ts a n d th a t th e c o u rt’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s re g a rd in g b o th t he gr ounds fort er m i nat i on and A l l i s on’ s bes ti nt er es t s w er e nots uppor t ed bys uffi ci ent evi dence
. “[W ] e w i l l aff i r m a s ever ance or der u n less iti s cl ear l yerr oneous . ” Jes us M
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof

E con. Sec. , 203 A r i z. 278, ¶ 4, 53 P. 3d 203, 205 ( A pp. 2002)
. W e “a cce ptt he j uveni l e court ’ s fi ndi ngs of fac t unl es s no r eas onabl e evi dence s uppor t s t hos e fi ndi ngs . ” Id
. B utw e r evi ew i s s ues of l aw , i ncl udi ng “a j uveni l e court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e de
novo. ” K i m u P
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 218 A r i z. 39, ¶ 13, 178 P. 3d 511, 515 ( A pp. 2 0 0 8 ). Fac t s and Pr oc e dur al Backg r ound ¶2 I n A pr i l 2006, t he A r i zona D epart m entof Econom i c Secur i t y ( A D E S) fi l ed a p e tit io n a lleg in g th a t A lli so n a n d h e r tw o b ro th e rs w e re d e p e n d e n t ch ild re n p u rsu a n t to A
. R
. S. § 8- 201( 13)
. C hi l d Pr ot ecti ve Ser vi ces r epor t ed t o t he j uveni l e courtt hatt he 1 chi l dr en’ s m ot herhad an “ ext ens i ve hi s t or y of cr i m i nal act i vi t yand pol y - s ubs t ance abus e”;
s he had gi ven pow erof at t or neyoveral l t hr ee c hi l dr en t o herfor m erempl oy er s i n M ar ch 2 0 0 6 , lef t A lli so n a n d th e o ld e r b ro th e r w ith th e m , an d a b a n d o n e d th e y o u n g e r b ro th e r a t a3

d if f e re n t lo c a tio n . In iti a lly , B o b b y ’s w h e r e a b o u ts w e re u n k n o w n , b u t A D E S e v e n tu a lly l ocat ed hi m l i vi ng i n I ndi ana. ¶3 I n J une 2006, B obbyadmi t t ed al l egat i ons i n an amended depe ndencypet i t i on t hathe had f

ai l ed t o s up p or tA l l i s on and had be en unabl e t o m ai nt ai n a meani ngful
r el at i ons hi p w i t h herand pr ot ectherfr om herm ot her ’ s negl ectand s ubs t ance abus e. T he
a m e n d e d p e tit io n in c lu d e d B o b b y ’s c laim th a t A lli so n ’s m o th e r h a d sto p p e d a llo w in g h im t o exer ci s e hi s cour t - or der ed vi s i t at i on “af t er N ovember 2001” and had m oved “s ubs equent t o M ar ch 2002,
. . . leavi ng hi m unaw ar e of [ A l l i s on’ s ] and the mot her ’ s w her eabout s and ci r cumst ance s . ” The j uveni l e courtadj udi cat ed A l l i s on depende nt and appr oved a pl an for fami l yr euni fi cat i on. A D E S offer ed r euni fi cat i on s er vi ces t o B obby , and i ti s undi s put ed that B obbycompl i ed w i t h al l as pect s of t he ca s e pl an. ¶4 A tt he per m anenc y pl anni ng hear i ng i n A pr i l 2007, A D E S r ecomm ended the j uveni l e courtal l ow B obbyaddi t ion al t i m e t o es t abl i s h a r el at i ons hi p w i t h A l l i s on and
e x p r e s s e d t h e o p i n i o n t h a tn o l e g a l g r o u n d s f o rs e v e r a n c e e x i s t e d
. A D E S r e q u e s t e d a n i n e t ydaycont i nuance of t he perm anenc ypl anni ng hear i ng an d “di s cr et i on t o begi n t el ephone cont actand fa ce- t o- fac e cont actbetw een [ B obby ] and [A l l i s on]
. ” A l l i s on’ s t h era p ist had op i n e d t h a t Al l i s o n was n o t y e t r e a d y f o r s u c h c o n t a c t , b u t AD ES t o l d t h e cour t i t w as

“ w illin g to f

in d a n o th e r t h e ra p is t to f a c ilita te f

a m ily th e ra p y .” ¶5 A l l i s on’ s couns el , how ever , ur ged t he cas e pl an be change d t o s ever ance and adopt i on. She ar gued t hats ever ance w as appr opr i at e bas ed on aba ndonm entand abus e and4

i nfor m ed the j uveni l e courts he w oul d be fi l i ng a pet i t i on t o t er m i nat e B obby ’ s par ent al
r i ght s . T he cour t s et a cont i nued perm anenc ypl anni ng hear i ng forM ay15, 2007. O n M ay 7, 2007, A l l i s on’ s couns el fi l ed a s ever ance pet i t i on pur s uantt o A
. R
. S. § 8- 533. ¶6 B obbym oved t o di s m i s s t he peti ti o n , ar gui ng t hat , beca us e the perm anenc y pl anni ng hear i ng had begun, a pet i t i on for t er m i nat i on under § 8- 533 w as pr ecl uded, and the onl ym ethod of pr ocee di ng t o t er m i nat e h i s par ent al r i ght s w as t hr ough a mot i on fi l ed pur s uant t o cour t or derunderA
. R
. S. § 8- 862. T he j uveni l e courtdet er m i ned “the exi s t ence of a pa r al l el depende ncyact i on [di d] notpr ecl ude t he fi l i ng of a Pet i t i on forT er m i nat i on of P arent -C hil d R e lati on shi p. ” Itcon sol i dated t he term i nati on and dep end encyproceed i ng s, and i tcons ol i dat ed the cont es t ed t er m i nat i on hear i ng w i t h t he re m ai nder of t he perm anenc y planni ng heari ng . A ft er t he com bined heari ng , t he co urtt erm i nated B ob by ’s parent al ri gh t s, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. D i s cus s i on ¶7 B ob by fi r s ta r gu e s t he j uv e ni l e c ou r te r r e d b yde ny i ng hi s mot i on t o d i s mi ss A l l i s on’ s t er m i nat i on pet i t i on. A s he di d bel ow , he cont ends t hata pet i t i on fort er m i nat i on
o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s u n d e r § 8
- 5 3 3 , a s o p p o s e d t o a mot i o n f o r t e r mi n a t i o n p u r s uant t o § 8- 862( D ) ( 1) , m aynotbe fi l ed af t era perm anenc yhear i ng has begun. A nd he cont ends t hat “[t ] he i nt erpr et at i on t he tr i al cour t pl ace d on t he A r i zona s t atut es , vi ew i ng t he tw o t r acks for
s ever ance as notm utual l y excl us i ve, w oul d vi ol at e a par ent ’ s r i ght s t o due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on of t he l aw . ” W e di s agr ee.5

¶8 S ect i on 8-533 (A ) s t at es: “[a]ny person or ag ency t hat has a l egit i m at e i nter est in th e w e lf

a re o f a c h il d
. . . m a yf ile a p e tit io n f

o r th e ter m in a tio n o f

th e p a re n t-c h ild
r el at i ons hi p. ” T he st atut e does not expr es s l y pr ohi bi t t he fi l i ng of a t er m i nat i on pet i t i on aft er a perm anenc ypl anni ng hear i ng has begun i n an ongoi ng depende ncypr ocee di ng. B obby cont ends t he l egi s l atur e i nt ended s uch a pr ohi bi t i on w hen i tenac t ed pr ovi s i ons form ot i ons t o t erm inate p arent al r i ght s undert he ci r cumst ance s des cr i bed i n § 8- 862( D ) ( 1)
. Sect i on 8- 532( C ) , A
. R
. S. , s t at es : “Thi s ar t i cl e does not appl y t o t er m i nat i on pr ocee di ngs conduct ed pur s uantt o chapt er10, ar t i cl e 4 of thi s t i t l e [§§ 8- 861 t hr ough 8- 864]
. ” B obby i nt erpr et s t he pr ovi s i on t o m ean that“the pet i t i on fort er m i nat i on of par ent - chi l d r el at i ons hi p does not appl yand maynotbe us ed w her e t er m i nat i o n is s oughtonce a per m anenc yhear i ng has b e g u n .” ¶9 “W hen i nt erpr et i ng a st atut e, ourpr i m arypurpos e i s t o ‘ eff ectuat e l egi s l at i ve i nt ent , ’ and a s t atut e’ s pl ai n l anguage i s t he ‘ bes tevi dence of t hati nt ent . ’ ” I n r e M ar i copa C ount y Mental Heal th N

o. M H 2006- 000490 , 214 A r i z. 485, ¶ 10, 154 P. 3d 387, 390 ( A pp. 2 0 0 7 ), quot i ng I

n r e Mar i copa C ount

y Mental Heal th N

o. 2001- 001139 , 203 A r i z. 351, ¶ 12, 5 4 P .3 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 2 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); s ee al s o K i m u P
. , 218 A r i z. 39, ¶ 16, 178 P. 3d at515. T he
s ame pr i nci pl es t hatappl yt o s t atut or ycons t ruct i on appl y t o t he i nt erpr et at i on of pr ocedur al rules pro m u lgated b y o u r su p rem e c o u rt . See M anuel M
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof

E con. Sec. , 218 Ar i z . 2 0 5 , ¶ ¶ 1 6 , 1 8 , 1 8 1 P
. 3 d 1 1 2 6 , 1 1 3 1 ( Ap p . 2 0 0 8 )
. Bo b b y ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f § 8
- 5 3 2 ( C) i s s i m pl yunw arr ant ed byt he pl ai n m eani ng of t he w or ds t he l egi s l atur e us ed. Sect i on 8- 532W e not e, how ever , t hatt he j uveni l e courther e corr ect l ycons ol i dat ed the pr ocee di ngs 2 pu rs uan tt o the pet i t i on for t erm i nati on w i t h the ong oing dep end encyproceed i ng s. 6 s t at es : “Thi s ar t i cl e [ar t i cl e 2] does notappl yt o t er m i nat i on pr ocee di ngs conduct ed pur s uant t o chapt er 10, ar t i cl e 4 of t hi s t i t l e, exce ptt o t he ext entpr es cr i bed i n § 8- 863. ” I tdoes not
s t at e thata part yi s pr ohi bi t ed fr om fi l i ng a pet i t i on p u rsua n t to ar t i cl e tw o once a ny p roc ee d ing s p u rsua n t t o ch ap ter t en , arti cle f o u r ha v e b e g u n . M o reo v er, t er m i nat i on pr ocee di ngs pur s uant t o chapt er t en of ar t i cl e four ar e onl ybegun once a courthas or der ed A D E S, t he chi l d’ s at t or ney , ort he guar di an ad l i t em, t o fi l e a mot i on fort er m i nat i on of p a re n ta l r ig h ts . See A .R .S . § 8 -8 6 2 (D )(1 ). T h a t d id n o t h a p p e n in th is c a se . T h u s, b yits
ow n t er m s , § 8- 532( C ) di d notpr ohi bi tappl i cat i on o f § 8 -53 3 al l ow i ng “[a ] nyper s on or agenc yt hat has a l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n t he w el far e of a chi l d” t o fi l e a pe t i t i on fort er m i nat i on of p arent al ri gh t s. 2 ¶10 B o b b ya lso a ss e rts th a t R u le 6 4 (B ), A riz . Ju v . R
. C t. , co n f irm s h is in ter p re tatio n o f § 8 -5 3 2 (C ). R a th e r th a n su p p o rt B o b b y ’s in ter p re tatio n , h o w e v e r, th e p lain l ang uag e i n R ule 64(B ) actuall yrefut es i t . B ob byrel i es on t he p ort i on of the rul e t hat s t at es: “I f t he chi l d ati s s ue i s nota depe ndent chi l d or i s a depende ntchi l d w ho w as t he s ubj ectof a depe ndencypet i t i on fi l ed pr i ort o J ul y1, 1998, t he pet i t i oners hal l fi l e a pe t i t i on for t er m i nat i on of par ent al r i ght s , pur s uantt o A
. R
. S. § 8- 534. ” B uthe i gnor es t he fi nal s ent ence
o f th e ru le: “N o thing in th is rule sha ll p rec lud e th e fil ing o f a pe ti ti o n in th o se ca ses w h ere the c h il d w as th e su b

ject of a d ep en d en cyp eti ti o n fil ed af ter Ju ly 1 , 1 9 9 8
. ” T ak en tog ethe r,7

t h e s t a tu t o r yp r o v i s i o n a n d s u p r e me c o u r t ru l e ma k e c l e a r t h a tAr i z o n a ’ s s t a tu t e s p r o v i d e t wo pr ocedur al l ydi s t i nctpat hs t ow ar d t er m i nat i on of par ent al r i ght s , butt heydo notpr ohi bi tt he f ilin g o f a p e titio n f

o r t e rm in a tio n a t a n ytim e b e f o re a m o tio n f

o r te rm in a tio n is o rd e re d
. C f. Ki mu P. , 2 1 8 Ar i z . 3 9 , ¶ ¶ 1 4 , 1 7 , 1 7 8 P
. 3 d a t 5 1 5
- 1 6 ( “ Ou r j u v e n i l e s t a tu t e s p r o v i d e f o rt wo
s epar at e pr ocedur al m echa ni s m s by w hi ch a t er m i nat i on of par ent al r i ght s m aybe obt ai ned” and, bas ed on t he pl ai n l anguage o f the s t atut es , appr opr i at e part i es have the opt i on of pur s ui ng t er m i nat i on bypet i t i on d espi t e pr evi ous i ni t i at i on of an ongoi ng dependa ncy p roc ee d ing
. ). ¶11 B obbyaddi t i onal l yar gues t hat“[t ] he i nt erpr et at i on t he tr i al cour tpl ac e d o n t he A riz o n a sta tu tes , v iew in g th e tw o tra c k s f o r s e v e ra n c e a s n o t m u tu a llye x c lu siv e , w o u ld vi ol at e a pa r ent ’ s r i ght s t o due pr oces s and equa l pr ot ect i on of t he l aw . ” H e al s o cont ends “[t ] he s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on t aken by t he t r i al cour t . . . w oul d depr i ve [hi m ] i n t hi s cas e of th e rig h t to b e g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity to p re se rv e a re latio n sh ip w ith h is d a u g h ter a t th e w h im of anypr i vat e part yw ho choos es t o fi l e a pr i vat e pet i t i on. ” B utas w e have expl ai ned above , t he j uveni l e courtcor r ect l yi n terpr et ed and a ppl i ed the s t atut e. M or eover , § 8- 862( D ) ( 1) i ncorpor at es t he gr ounds fort er m i nat i on pr ovi ded i n § 8- 533, and nei t her§ 8- 533 norfede r al law re q u ire s th a t a p a re n t b e p ro v id e d re u n if ica tio n se rv ice s b e f

o re th e c o u rt m a yter m in a te th e p a re n t’ s ri g h ts o n th e g ro u n d o f a b a n d o n m e n t. See Toni W
. v. A r iz . D ep’ tof

E con. Sec. , 196 A r i z. 61, ¶¶ 7- 9, 993 P. 2d 462, 465 ( A pp. 1999)
. I n anyevent , A D E S di d pr ovi de B obby
w i t h r euni fi cat i on s er vi ces . A nd, B obbyconce des t hatA l l i s on “[c ] l ear l y. . . coul d have f i l ed8

a pet i t i on for term inat i on . . . pr i ort o a depe ndencypr ocee di ng bei ng br ought
. ” Thus, t he fac tt hatA l l i s on, a pr i vat e part y , i s t he pet i t i oneras oppos ed t o A D E S, an age ncyof t he s t at e, i s a di s t i nct i o n w it h o u t a di ffe r ence . W e fi nd no err ori n t he j uveni l e court ’ s deni al of B o b b y ’s m o tio n to d is m is s . ¶12 B obby next cont ends t he j uveni l e cour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs as t o t he gr ounds for t er m i nat i on ar e nots uppor t ed bys uffi ci entevi dence
. B eca us e w e fi nd t her e w as s uffi ci ent evi dence fort he cour t to concl ude thatB obbyabandone d A l l i s on, w e nee d notdeci de
w h e th e rth e e v id e n c e w a s a ls o s u f f ic ie n t t o s u p p o r t t h e te r m in a ti o n o f B o b b y’s p a r e n ta l r ig h ts
o n th e g ro u n d o f

a b u s e p u rs u a n t to § 8 -5 3 3 (B )( 2 ). See Mi chael J. v
. A r iz . D ep’ tof E con. Sec. , 1 9 6 A riz . 2 4 6 , ¶ 1 2 , 9 9 5 P .2 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 5 (2 0 0 0 ) (“ T o ju stif yter m in a tio n o f

th e p a re n tchi l d r el at i ons hi p, t he tr i al cour t m us t fi nd, by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence , atl eas tone of the st atuto ry g rou n d s set o u t in se cti o n 8 -53 3
. . . . ”); Jes us M
. v. A r iz . D ep’ t of E con. Sec. , 2 0 3 A riz . 2 7 8 , ¶ 3 , 5 3 P .3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) (“ If c lea r a n d c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e su p p o rts anyone of the s t atut or ygr ounds on w hi ch the j uveni l e cour t or der ed seve r ance , w e need not
a d d re s s c la im s p e rt a in in g to th e o th e r g ro u n d s .” ). ¶13 B o b b y a rg u e s tha t “ § 8 -5 3 1 (1 ) req u ire s, a t a m in im u m , th a t a p a re n t b o th f a il to p ro v id e re a so n a b le s u p p o rt a n d f a il to m a in tain re g u lar c o n tac t w ith a c h ild in o rd e r to
s uppor ta fi ndi ng of aba ndonm ent . ” H e cont ends t he j uveni l e court“made no fi ndi ng t hat [he ha d] fai l ed t o pr ovi de r eas onabl e s uppor tt o [A l l i s on]
. ” H e al s o cont ends “the evi dence present ed at the seve rance heari ng dem on strat ed thatno y e a r p a ssed w i t ho ut [B ob by ’s ]9

contr i but i ng t o [A l l i s on’ s ] s uppor t , ei t hert hr ough di r ectpaym ent s , w age a s s i gnm ent s , or
a ttac h m e n ts o f

in c o m e tax re f

u n d s o r a c o m b in a tio n th e re o f.” B u t “ th e ju v e n ile c o u rt w ill be deemed t o have m ade every fi ndi ng nece s s ary t o s uppor t [i t s ] j udgm ent . ” I n r e M ar i copa C ount y Juv
. A ct i on N

o. JS- 8287 , 1 7 1 A ri z. 10 4 , 1 1 1 , 8 2 8 P
. 2 d 1 2 4 5 , 1 2 5 2 (A p p . 1 9 9 1 ), quot i ng I n r e P i m a C ount

y Sev. A ct i on N

o. S- 1607 , 147 A r i z. 237, 238, 709 P. 2d 871, 872 ( 1985)
. A nd as B obbyacknow l edges , a par ent ’ s “[f ] ai l ur e t o m aintai n a nor m al par ent al
r e l a t i o n s h i p wi t h t he c h i l d wi t h o u tj u s tc a u s e f o ra p e r i o d o f

s i x mo n t h s c o n s t i tu t e s p r i ma f a c ie e v id e n c e o f

a b a n d o n m e n t.” A .R .S . § 8 -5 3 1 (1 ). ¶14 B o b b ya ss e rts th a t ju st c a u se e x iste d f o r his f a ilu re to m a in tain a re latio n sh ip
w i t h A l l i s on for near l y hal f of her l i fe beca us e A l l i s on’ s m ot herconce al ed herfr om hi m . B ut t he cour t cl ear l y r ej ect ed B obby ’ s cl ai m of conc eal m ent , fi ndi ng hi s as s er t i on t hatt he mot her h a d b e e n h id in g A lli so n f ro m h im “ w ith o u t m e rit” a n d n o tin g th e m o th e r h a d c o n tin u e d to
r es i de a n d wor k i n Tu c s o n . Th e c o u r t a l s o n o t e d t h e l a c k o f d o c u me n t a r y e v i d e nce t hat B obby“di d a s i ngl e thi ng t o l ocat e hi s chi l d fora per i od o f foury ear s ” and f ound t hat B obby ’ s “ef

for t s t o cont actA l l i s on . . . [had been] m i ni m al at bes t . ” S e e J e s u s M. , 203 A r i z. 278, ¶ 4, 53 P. 3d at205 ( “The j uveni l e court , as t he tr i erof fa cti n a t er m i nat i on pr ocee di ng, i s i n t he bes tpos i t i on t o w ei gh t he evi dence , obs er ve the part i es , j udge the cr edi bi l i t yof
w itn e ss e s, a n d m a k e a p p ro p ria te f in d in g s.” ). In its m in u te e n try , the c o u rt a c c u ra tely d esc ri b ed m o re tha n su ff ici entevide n ce that B o b b yh ad fa il ed to “p rov ide re aso n ab le su p p o rt and t o m ai ntai n r egu l ar con t act ” w i t h A l l i son for a peri od of approx i m at el y fou r y e a rs.10

A lth o u g h B o b b ych all en g es th e c o u rt ’s u lt im ate d eterm ination , h e d o es n o t assert th e c o u rt
m i s s t at ed the evi dence
. T hus , w e aff i r m t he court ’ s fi ndi ng t hatB obbyabandone d A l l i s on. ¶15 Fi nal l y , B obby cont ends t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o s uppor t a fi ndi ng t hat ter m in a tio n o f

h is p a re n tal rig h ts w a s in A lli so n ’s b e st in ter e sts . A b e st-in ter e sts d e te rm in a tio n n e e d o n ly b e s u p p o rt e d b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . See KentK
. v. B o b b y M. , 2 1 0 A riz . 2 7 9 , ¶ 2 2 , 1 1 0 P .3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 8 (2 0 0 5 ). E v id e n c e th a t a c h ild w ill der i ve “a n aff

i r m at i ve bene fi tf

r o m t e rmi nat i on” i s s uffi ci entt o s at i s fyt hatbur den, and “[ t ] he exi s t ence of a c ur r entadopt i ve pl an i s one w el l
- r ecogni zed e xampl e of s uch a be nefi t . ” A ri z. De p ’ t o fE c o n . S e c . v . Os c a rO. , 209 A r i z. 332, ¶ 6, 100 P. 3d 943, 945 ( A pp. 2004) ( ci t at i ons
o m itt e d ). B u t, a “ sp e c if ic a d o p tio n p lan ” is n o t a p re re q u isite to ter m in a tio n ; th e ju v e n ile
cour tm ayr el yon evi dence t hatt he chi l d i s adopt abl e and the exi s t i ng pl ace m enti s m eet i ng t he ch i l d’s needs. I

n r e M ar i copa Juv
. A ct i on N

o. JS- 501904 , 180 A r i z. 348, 352, 884 P. 2d 234, 238 ( A pp. 1994)
. I n t hi s cas e, i ti s uncont es t ed that t he fos t erpar ent s des i r e t o adopt A l l i s on and herbr ot her s and t hatA l l i s on i s thri v ing in the i rcar e. T he courtfound t hat A l l i son an d h er ol der brot her “are cl osel ybo nd ed” an d thati t w ou l d not be “i n A l l i son’s best i nt er es tt hats he be s epar at ed fr om [hi m ]
. ” B obbyes s ent i al l ycont ends t h e co u r ti gnor ed evi dence t hats uppor t ed a f i ndi ng t hatt er m i nat i on w as noti n A l l i so n ’s b est int er es t s . B ut not hi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s t he courtdi d notcons i deral l of t he evi dence pr es ent ed. A nd,
a s n o te d a b o v e , th e c o u rt is in th e b e s t p o s itio n to w e ig h c o n f lic tin g e v id e n c e . See Je sus M .,11

203 A r i z. 278, ¶ 4, 53 P. 3d at 205. T hus , w e have no bas i s fordi s turbi ng t he court ’ s fi ndi ng t hat t erm i nati on of B ob by ’s parent al ri gh t s w as i n A l l i son’s besti nter est s. D i s posi t i on ¶16 For t he r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e af fi r m t he j uveni l e court ’ s or dert er m i nat i ng B o b b y ’s p a re n ta l r ig h ts to A llis o n .

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

G A R Y E L
. V Á SQ U E Z , J udge