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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CLINT G., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, L.G., F.G., K.G., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0140 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300JD201900087

P1300JD202000014

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer PC, Anthem

By Florence M. Bruemmer

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Eric Devany

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 8-18-2020
CLINT G. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Clint G. (“Father”) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to his children, L.G., F.G. and K.G.1 For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the 

juvenile court’s order. Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 2 ¶ 2 (2016).

Clint G. and Kyra C. (“Mother”) are the biological parents of L.G., F.G., and 

K.G. In 2017, the children were sent to Texas to live with Lori C. 

(“Grandmother”) after she was awarded guardianship through a Texas 

court. According to an Arizona Department of Child Safety report, the 

children’s parents had been abusing substances and were not successful at 

completing reunification services in Texas. The parents then moved to 

Arizona.

¶3 In October 2019, Father was convicted of second-degree

burglary, trafficking in stolen property, theft, and forgery and was 

sentenced to five years in prison. Two months later, the Department 

received a report that Mother was being investigated for trafficking stolen 

goods. As part of the investigation, police officers searched Mother’s home

and found methamphetamine, weapons, and ammunition in plain view

and within access of the children. While the officers were in the home, L.G. 

pulled from the couch a “rolled 1 dollar bill” and a “plastic bindle baggy 

containing .3 grams of meth.”

¶4 The officers arrested Mother and the Department took the 

children into custody because they could not locate Grandmother. The 

children were each given a hair follicle drug test and each child tested 

positive for methamphetamine. As part of the Department’s investigation, 

1 The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of the 

children’s mother, but she is not a party to this appeal. 
CLINT G. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

3

Grandmother also submitted to drug testing and tested positive for 

methamphetamine and THC.

¶5 The Department found the children dependent as to Father in 

March 2020. The Department subsequently moved to terminate his parental 

rights alleging neglect and length of incarceration due to a felony conviction

under A.R.S. § 8–533(B)(2) and (4).

¶6 In March 2020, the court held a combined dependency, 

revocation of guardianship, and termination hearing. At the hearing, a 

Department case manager testified that although the children were not in 

an adoptive placement, they were adoptable, and their current placement 

was meeting their needs. The case manager further opined that termination 

was in the children’s best interests because it would free them for adoption 

to a safe and appropriate home. She also testified that failing to terminate 

Father’s parental rights would be detrimental because the children would 

be at risk of continued neglect or exposure to substances.

¶7 The juvenile court terminated Father’s rights to the children, 

finding that termination was warranted on both grounds alleged and that 

termination would be in the children’s best interests. The court found that 

terminating Father’s parental rights would benefit the children because it 

would further the plan of adoption and protect them from further neglect 

and substance abuse. It also found that the children were adoptable and

noted that the children’s placement was meeting all their needs and was the 

least restrictive placement available. Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶8 Father challenges only the juvenile court’s best-interests 

finding, arguing that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

ruling that terminating his parental rights was in the children’s best 

interests. A juvenile court’s termination order is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. E.R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 56, 58 ¶ 9 (App. 2015). “The 

juvenile court, as the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, is in the best 

position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of 

witnesses, and make appropriate findings.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280 ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We accept the juvenile court’s factual 

findings unless no reasonable evidence supports them and will affirm a 

termination order unless the order is clearly erroneous. Bobby G. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 506, 508 ¶ 1 (App. 2008).

¶9 Terminating parental rights is in the children’s best interests 

if the children will benefit from the termination or will be harmed if the 
CLINT G. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

4

relationship continues. Shawanee S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 234 Ariz. 174, 

179 ¶ 20 (App. 2014). Relevant factors in this determination include whether 

the current placement is meeting the children’s needs, an adoption plan is 

in place, and the children are adoptable. Demetrius L., 239 Ariz. at 3–4 ¶ 12. 

Moreover, “[i]n a best interests inquiry . . . we can presume that the interests

of the parent and child diverge because the court has already found the 

existence of one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and 

convincing evidence.” Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286 ¶ 35 (2005). 

¶10 Here, the juvenile court found that Father had neglected the 

children by failing to protect them from Mother’s and Grandmother’s 

substance abuse and neglect. It also found that the children’s current 

placement was meeting all their needs and that the Department was 

making efforts to locate an adoptive placement. Additionally, the case 

manager testified that the children are adoptable and that the children 

would benefit from termination because it would further the plan for 

adoption and provide them with stability and permanency. She also 

testified that if Father’s rights were not terminated, the children would be 

at risk of continued neglect and exposure to substances. As such, sufficient 

evidence supports the court’s finding that terminating Father’s parental 

rights was in the children’s best interests. 

¶11 Father also maintains that the case manager’s testimony that 

the children would be adopted by a safe and appropriate home that meets 

their needs is “purely speculation at best.” We decline to consider Father’s 

assertion because we will not substitute our judgment for that of the 

juvenile court about the credibility and weight of witness testimony. See 

Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 282 ¶¶ 4, 12. Moreover, availability of a likely adoptive 

parent is only one potential benefit relevant to a best-interests assessment, 

and the record here reflects that additional factors sufficiently support the 

juvenile court’s determination that terminating Father’s parental rights 

would benefit the children.

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.