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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

VICTOR K., Appellant
,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, K.K., J.K., V.K.,

Appellees

.
No. 1 CA

- JV 20

- 0067

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD510435 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter
, Judge

AFFIRM ED

COUNSEL

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC
, Scottsdale By Christopher Stavris Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office
, Mesa By Eric Devany C ounsel for Appellee FILED 02-04-2021VICTOR K. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

W E I N Z W E I G , Judge:

¶1 Victor K. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to J.K., K.K. and V.K. ( the “Children”). Because Father has shown no error, we affirm. 1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 T he Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) first removed the Children from Father in July 2012 based on domestic violence, substance abuse
, physical abuse and sexual abuse

. The court found the Children dependent as to Father
, adopt ed a family reunification case plan , and ordered DCS to provide Father with reunification services. Father initially refused to attend individual counseling , which he felt was unnecessary , and he showed little behavioral change in parent

- aid meetings

. ¶3 A licensed psychologist, Dr. Al Silberman, performed a bonding and best

- interests assessment in June 2014. Although he later revisited and revised his opinion, Dr. Silverman concluded the C hildren could live with Father without danger and DCS should reunite th em

. Father had shown enough progress by July 2014 for the court to return the Children to his physical custody as dependent children

. ¶4 F our months after reunification, DCS was informed the Children lacked proper supervision and were exhibiting sexual behaviors. An older sister had also been physically violent with the Children. Other evidence corroborated the allegations

. DCS also learned that Father was not providing J.K. and K.K. with their pres cribed ADHD medication , with a report that Father was keeping the medication for himself

. The court again removed the Children from Father in October 2014

. ¶5 The dependency continued. V.K. was returned to Father’s physical custody in December 2016
, and V.K.’s dependency proceeding

1 The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights in May 2015; she is not a party to this appeal.VICTOR K. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

3 was then dismissed

. T he court returned J.K. and K.K. to Father in August 201 8 as dependen t children based on input from third

- party service providers.

¶6 DCS received more all egations of abuse and neglect by Father in February 2019

. The investigation c orroborated the allegations, including that Father had physically abused the Children, threatened to slit their throats, and denied them food and medication. Father repo rted ly asked

one child : “ Should I kill you now? Should I strip you naked and throw you in the street for everyone to see? Should I just kill you all? ”

¶7 The Children were removed from Father in April 2019

. Recognizing the length of the dependency (seven years) and lack of progress , DCS moved to terminate Father’s parental rights to J.K. and K.K.

on statutory grounds of abuse and neglect , fifteen months time

- in

- care and abandonment . DCS also reinstated the dependency for V.K. and mov ed to contemporaneously adjudicate V.K. dependent and te rminate Father’s parental rights t o V.K. on statutory grounds of abuse and neglect

. ¶8 By then, DCS had offered Father substance

- abuse treatment, substance

- abuse testing, parent

- aide services, two supervised

- visitation

only parent aides, two psychological consultations, multiple psychological evaluations, two psychosexual evaluations, two bo nding and best

- interest assessments, two family therapists, two individual counselors, two family reunification teams, a child

- and

- family team, team decision

- making meetings, and a family interventionalist.

¶9 A few months later
, Dr. Silberman again examine d the Children individually and diagnosed each with post

- traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) stemming from Father’s physical and emotional abuse. Dr. Silberman concluded that reunification was not in the Children’s best interest s and recommended no visitat ion for Father

. ¶10 The juvenile court held an eight

- day severance hearing in February 2020. Father was present, represented by counsel and testified on his own behalf. The court ultimately terminate d Father’s parental rights to J.K. for abandonment, § 8

- 533 (B)(1), to J.K. and K.K. for abuse and neglect, A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B)(2) , and fifteen months time

- in

- care , § 8

- 533(B)(8)(c)
, and to V.K. for abuse and neglect, § 8

- 533(B)( 2)

. The court also found that termination was in the Children’s best interest s because they were adoptable and succeeding in the ir placement s . Father timely appealed

. W e have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 8

- 235.VICTOR K. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

4 DISCUSSION

¶11 Father has a fundamental but not absolute right to custody of his children. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep ’ t of Econ. Sec. , 196 Ariz. 246, 248, ¶¶ 11

- 12 (2000). To sever the parent

- child relationship, the juvenile court must find clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground under A.R.S. § 8

– 533(B)
, and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child ’ s best interests. Id

. at 249, ¶ 12. We will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous. Jesus M. v. Ari z. Dep ’ t of Econ. Sec. , 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We accept the court ’ s findings of fact unless no reasonable evidence supports them, id

. , and view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the order
, Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep ’ t of Eco n. Sec. , 221 Ariz. 92, 97, ¶ 20 (App. 2009).

¶12 Father challenges the juvenile court’s finding of statutory grounds to terminate his parental rights to K.K. and V.K. but does not challenge the court’s finding of abandonment as to J.K. He contends the
court had insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights to K.K. and V.K. based on abuse or neglect. He also challenge s the court ’s best interest s finding for all three children.

¶13 Parental rights are terminable upon clear and convincing evidence
, Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety , 240 Ariz. 96, 98, ¶ 7 (App. 2016), that a “parent has neglected or willfully abused a child
, ” A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B)(2). Neglect means “the inability or unwillingness of a parent .

. . to provide [the] child wit h supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child ’ s health or welfare.” A.R.S. § 8

- 201(25)(a). “Abuse” means inflictin g or allowing another to inflict “ physical injury, impairment of bodily function or disfigurement or

. . . cause serious emotional damage as evidenced by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or untoward aggressive behavior and which emotional damage is diagnosed by a medical doctor or psychologist and i s caused by the acts or omissions of an individual who has the care, custody and control of a child. ” A.R.S. § 8

- 201(2).

¶14 Father has shown no error with the court’s finding of abuse or neglect, A.R.S. § 8

- 533(B)(2), and we therefore do not examine the

rema ining grounds for termination. The juvenile court was presented with substantial evidence of physical and emotional abuse . The court heard testimony that Father whipped the Children, ignored sexual misconduct inflicted upon them and left the Children hun gry. The record also shows that Father threatened to kill the Children and leave them naked in theVICTOR K. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court

5 streets for “everyone to see.” Father’s abuse caused the Children to develop PTSD

. ¶15 Father counters with record evidence he views as more favorable to his position, but this court will not reweigh the evidence or redetermine the credibility of the witnesses. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety
, 245 Ariz. 146, 151, ¶ 18 (2018).

¶16 Father also contends the juvenile court erroneously concluded it “only needed to consider the events from the most recent return of the children and the most recent removal[,] as this ruling negated Father’s progress during the course of the case which [led] to the children’s return to Father.” We agree the court misstated the law, which does not limit the definition of “abuse” to events in a particular period , A.R.S. § 8

- 201(2), but the error was not prejudicial . Father ’s history with DCS would not have helped his case. And at most, the juve nile court must consider the risk of harm to non

- abused children when terminating parental rights to

non

- abused children , unlike here

. See Sandra R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety , 248 Ariz. 224, 228

- 29, ¶¶ 16

- 22 (2020). Because the record includes substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding of abuse and neglect as to the Children , we need not assess the court’s remaining statutory grounds.

¶17 Next, t he record supports the juvenile court ’ s best

- interest finding that the Children “would derive an affirmative benefit from termination or incur a detriment by continuing in the relationship.” Ariz. Dep ’ t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O. , 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 6 (App. 2004). If denied severance, the Children would have remained with a neglectful pa rent

. Furthermore, the Children are adoptable and succeeding in their current placement s

. See Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep ’ t of Econ. Sec. , 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 5 (App. 1998). In sum , Father has shown no error in the juvenile court’s best

interest determinati on.

CONCLUSION

¶18 W e affirm.