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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RENEE C., Appellant,

v.

DANIEL D., K.D., B.D., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0478 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. B8015SV201704006

The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Alison Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

Harris & Winger, PC, Flagstaff

By Chad J. Winger

Counsel for Appellees

FILED 7-23-2019
RENEE C. v. DANIEL D., et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

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

¶1 Renee C. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order 

terminating her parental rights to K.D. and B.D. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Daniel D. (“Father”) are the biological parents of 

K.D., born in December 2008, and B.D., born in May 2010. Father lives with 

K.D. and B.D. in Mohave County. Mother lives in Clark County, Nevada.

¶3 Father and Mother married in California in April 2008. 

Marital problems arose after K.D. was born. Mother was twice arrested for 

domestic abuse against Father during their marriage, including in 2010, 

when she confronted him with scissors and cut his shirt off. Both children 

were home at the time. Father also reported previous “domestic violence 

calls from her abusing her previous boyfriend.” Father petitioned for 

divorce in California after the 2010 arrest and moved to Arizona. He and 

Mother orally agreed to share parenting time and custody of the children.

¶4 Mother continued to have problems. Between 2010 and 2015, 

the California Department of Child and Family Services (“CDCFS”) 

encountered Mother at least five times and twice removed the children 

from her care. CDCFS first removed the children in March 2011 because 

Mother was intoxicated, non-responsive to law enforcement and 

“staggering.” CDCFS again removed the children in October 2013 when 

Mother’s boyfriend became intoxicated and violent with K.D. “for no 

reason,” knocking a glass of milk from the five-year-old’s hand with 

enough force that “it shattered against the wall.” A court-appointed 

investigator confirmed the California records “prov[ed] the child abuse 

allegations [against Mother] were valid.” CDCFS concluded that Mother 

was unfit to parent and placed the children with Father. A CDCFS worker 

“strongly recommended that [Father] obtain full sole legal custody of the 

children.”
RENEE C. v. DANIEL D., et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Father and Mother finalized their divorced in December 2015. 

The California court awarded Father sole legal custody of the children and 

granted Mother “monitored visitation” with the children twice a month. It 

ordered the visitation “take place in Bullhead City, Arizona, where [Father] 

and the children reside” and that Mother be responsible for “[t]he cost for 

the monitored visitation.” Mother had four monitored visits with the 

children in 2015, and two visits in 2016. Her final visit was on December 3, 

2016. Since then, Mother has had no in-person contact with the children.

¶6 A visitation supervisor reported Mother “showed up late” to 

the visits, “would cut visits short” and that “she couldn’t control the kids.” 

The supervisor expressed concern for the children’s safety, citing examples 

of when Mother brought pepper spray to the visit; allowed K.D. to start the 

car with her keys; and nearly crashed into a car and a pedestrian in a 

parking lot. The supervisor eventually required a second supervisor to 

attend and monitor the visits to ensure the children’s safety.

¶7 Meanwhile, the parents agreed to participate in reunification

counseling with the children in July 2016. Mother attended only 12 sessions 

in the first six months and ended all participation in January 2017, leading 

the provider to discharge the family in June 2017 because Mother “became 

non-participatory.”

¶8 On June 27, 2017, Father petitioned the superior court in 

Arizona to terminate Mother’s parental rights to K.D. and B.D., alleging 

abandonment because Mother “ha[d] not had any contact with the minor 

children since on or about December 15, 2016.” See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1). 

Mother contested the allegations and moved for a social study, which the 

court granted. See A.R.S. § 8-536(A).

¶9 In a separate family court proceeding, Father petitioned the 

superior court to establish child support and child support arrears. In 

September 2017, the court found that Mother owed more than $30,000 in 

child support arrears and ordered her to pay $700 per month in child 

support. Mother made one $700 payment in September 2017 and has paid 

no arrearages.

¶10 The superior court held a contested hearing in August 2018

and terminated Mother’s parental rights in September 2018. The court 

found clear and convincing evidence that Mother had abandoned the 

children and concluded severance was in the children’s best interests.

Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-

235(A) and § 12-2101(A)(1).
RENEE C. v. DANIEL D., et al.

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶11 To terminate parental rights, the superior court must find 

clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground in A.R.S. § 8-

533(B), and that termination is in the child’s best interests by a 

preponderance of the evidence. Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 

212, 213, ¶ 5 (App. 2016). We will affirm a severance order unless it is 

clearly erroneous and accept the court’s factual findings unless no 

reasonable evidence supports them. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 

Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002).

A. Abandonment

¶12 Parental rights may be terminated if parents abandon their 

children. A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1). Abandonment is defined as “the failure of a 

parent to provide reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with 

the child,” including “normal supervision.” A.R.S. § 8-531(1). “Failure to 

maintain a normal parental relationship with the child without just cause 

for a period of six months constitutes prima facie evidence of 

abandonment.” Id.

¶13 Mother had no in-person contact with her children for over 

six months before Father moved to terminate her parental rights and she 

had not seen her children in almost 23 months when the court terminated 

her parental rights. Yet Mother argues she has overcome the presumption 

of abandonment and the court had insufficient evidence for its decision. We 

disagree.

¶14 Reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding that Mother 

abandoned the children. Even before her visits ended in December 2016, 

Mother’s monitored visits were infrequent and minimal. She did not make 

a single in-person visit from June 2015 to November 2016. Nor did Mother 

fully engage in reunification counseling, ending her infrequent attendance 

after only six months and then being discharged as “non-participatory.” 

Mother also failed to support the children financially. She owed $30,000 in 

child support arrears.

¶15 Mother only counters the abandonment finding with 

infrequent phone calls to the children, some text messages in which she asks 

about them, and an occasional gift. She also claims that her participation in 

family court litigation shows she “asserted her rights to have contact with 

her children.” But at most, Mother shows “only minimal efforts to support 

and communicate with the child[ren],” which is still “abandonment” under 
RENEE C. v. DANIEL D., et al.

Decision of the Court

5

A.R.S. § 8-531(1). In sum, the superior court did not err in finding Father 

had proven abandonment by clear and convincing evidence.

B. Best Interests

¶16 Mother also contests the best-interests finding. Termination 

is in a child’s best interests if the child “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).

¶17 The superior court found the children would be harmed by 

continuing the parent-child relationship with Mother because her 

relationship with Father “has been chaotic and dysfunctional,” her failure 

to “follow through with services and parenting time has continued to 

generate chaos and uncertainty in the children’s lives,” and she has “not 

demonstrated a commitment to the children or their well-being for a period 

of years.” Because reasonable evidence in the record supports these 

findings, we will not disturb them.

¶18 Mother argues that termination is not in the best interests of 

the children because Father “is not in a relationship and does not have 

anyone who would be adopting the children,” and it would leave the 

children without “a Mother figure.” But she offers no authority for the 

argument that termination of a mother’s parental rights is not in a child’s 

best interests unless the mother is replaced. See Pima Cty. Juv. Severance 

Action No. S-2462, 162 Ariz. 536, 539 (App. 1989) (“It is inconceivable that 

the legislature intended that a plan for adoption be a prerequisite to 

severance . . . .”).

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm.