NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

GAVINO C., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY1, N.C., G.C.,

Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 14-0051

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD500478

The Honorable Rodrick J. Coffey, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Anne M. Williams, P.C., Tempe

By Anne M. Williams

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Nicholas Chapman-Hushek

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

 

1 Pursuant to S.B. 1001, Section 157, 51st Leg., 2nd Spec. Sess. (Ariz. 

2014) (enacted), the Department of Child Safety is substituted for the 

Arizona Department of Economic Security in this matter. See ARCAP 27.

To maintain consistency with the juvenile court record, however, we refer 

to ADES throughout the body of our decision.
GAVINO C. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maurice Portley and Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Gavino C. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to seven-year-old N.C. and five-year-old 

G.C. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In February 2011, Child Protective Services (“CPS”) received 

a report that Priscilla L. (“Mother”), the biological mother of N.C. and G.C., 

was engaging in drug abuse and neglecting her children. The report also 

alleged that the children were exposed to “on-going domestic violence.” A

CPS case manager contacted Mother and concluded she was unable “to 

provide for all of [her] children’s basic needs such as food or proper 

hygiene.”2 At that time, Father’s “current whereabouts and contact 

information [were] unknown.” 

¶3 In March 2011, the Arizona Department of Economic Security 

(“ADES”) filed a dependency petition alleging Mother was unable to parent 

due to substance abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and mental health 

issues. The petition also alleged Father was unable to parent due to 

abandonment, neglect and substance abuse. Specifically, although Father 

was granted custody of N.C. and G.C. by court order as the result of a 

previous dependency action against Mother, he failed to maintain a normal 

relationship with the children or provide for their needs and instead 

returned the children to Mother’s care. 

¶4 On May 11, 2011, the juvenile court found the children 

dependent as to Father. The court designated a case plan of family 

reunification and ordered ADES to provide services for Father “should [he] 

appear.” 

 

2 Although the CPS report related to six of Mother’s children, only 

N.C. and G.C. are Father’s children and at issue in this appeal. 
GAVINO C. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 At a report and review hearing held October 10, 2012, the 

juvenile court granted ADES’s request to change the case plan to severance 

and adoption with regard to Mother, but denied the corresponding request

as to Father and ordered that the case plan for Father remain family 

reunification. ADES filed a motion to terminate Mother’s parental rights 

and, following procedural delays, her parental rights were terminated on 

June 25, 2013. 

¶6 At a subsequent report and review hearing held August 19, 

2013, the juvenile granted ADES’s request to change the case plan to 

severance and adoption as to Father. ADES then filed a motion to terminate

Father’s parental rights, alleging he had abandoned the children pursuant 

to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(1) and been unable 

to remedy the circumstances causing the children to be placed in courtordered out-of-home placement for more than fifteen months pursuant to 

A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). 

¶7 The juvenile court held a two-day contested severance 

hearing on January 6 and February 3, 2014. Father acknowledged he did 

not know when he was last in contact with the children before they were 

removed from Mother in March 2011. Father testified that he was granted 

custody of the children when he was released from prison in 2010, but he 

returned them to Mother notwithstanding they had been removed from her 

care pursuant to court order. Father explained that he is employed as a 

commercial roofer and frequently travels to work in other states for 

extended periods and he “trusted [Mother] with [his] kids.” Father 

admitted he had no contact with the children between March 2011 and June 

2012, even though Mother had informed him the children were in the

custody of ADES a year earlier. 

¶8 Father did not appear in the dependency case until June 28, 

2012. Father admitted that, in March 2013, he left Arizona to work on a 

roofing job without informing CPS beforehand, and failed to contact the 

children in any manner between March 2013 and August 2013. He likewise 

acknowledged that he failed to offer any financial support during the entire 

period the children were subject to the dependency order. 

¶9 The case manager confirmed that Father provided no 

financial support for the children during the thirty-four months they have 

been in the care of ADES. She further testified that the children have been 

in the same foster home the entire period and are strongly bonded to their 

foster parents, who wish to adopt them. 
GAVINO C. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 The juvenile court granted ADES’s motion to terminate, 

finding clear and convincing evidence that Father abandoned N.C. and 

G.C., was unable to remedy the circumstances causing the out-of-home 

placement, and that termination of his parental rights is in the children’s 

best interests. Father timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

¶11 The juvenile court may terminate the parent-child 

relationship only upon finding that clear and convincing evidence 

demonstrates at least one statutory ground for severance and that a 

preponderance of the evidence shows severance is in the child’s best 

interest. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K. v Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22, 110 

P.3d 1013, 1018 (2005). We will affirm the judgment unless the juvenile 

court abused its discretion by making “factual findings [that] are clearly 

erroneous[;] that is, unless there is no reasonable evidence to support 

them.” Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 2, 982 P.2d 

1290, 1291 (App. 1998) (citations omitted). “[T]he juvenile court will be 

deemed to have made every finding necessary to support the judgment.” 

Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-8287, 171 Ariz. 104, 111, 828 P.2d 1245, 

1252 (App. 1991) (citations omitted). 

¶12 Father contends the juvenile court erred by finding he 

abandoned the children and contends he had “just cause” for leaving the 

state. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1), the juvenile court was authorized to 

terminate Father’s rights upon a finding that Father abandoned the 

children. Abandonment is statutorily defined as:

[T]he failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to 

maintain regular contact with the child, including providing 

normal supervision. Abandonment includes a judicial 

finding that a parent has made only minimal efforts to 

support and communicate with the child. 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.

A.R.S. § 8-531(1). Abandonment is measured objectively by examining the 

parent’s conduct, not the parent’s subjective intent. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t 

of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249-50, ¶ 18, 995 P.2d 682, 685-86 (2000). When 

“circumstances prevent [a parent] from exercising traditional methods of 

bonding with his child, he must act persistently to establish the relationship 
GAVINO C. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

5

however possible and must vigorously assert his legal rights to the extent 

necessary.” Id. at 250, ¶ 22, 995 P.2d at 686. 

¶13 Here, Father testified he was uncertain as to the last time he 

contacted the children before the dependency proceeding began in March 

2011. Although Mother informed Father the children were in ADES’s care 

by June 2011, Father made no attempt to contact the children, check on their 

welfare, or notify CPS of his whereabouts until June 2012. After making his 

initial appearance in the dependency in June 2012, Father participated in 

some court-ordered services, including visits with the children, between 

June 2012 and March 2013. In March 2013, however, Father left the state, 

without providing CPS prior notice, and never attempted to contact the 

children or check on their welfare between March 2013 and August 2013. 

Additionally, Father has never provided any financial support for the 

children since their removal from Mother’s home in March 2011. Father’s 

repeated, lengthy absences from his children’s lives are prima facie 

evidence of abandonment. See A.R.S. § 8-531(1). Although Father stated 

that his absences were primarily a function of his employment, Father failed 

to “act persistently to establish a relationship” with his children by failing 

to attempt any contact during these periods or provide financial support. 

Moreover, by his own admission, Father did nothing to enforce his rights

for over a year after Mother informed him the children were taken into 

ADES’s custody and only asserted his rights when Mother’s parental rights 

were severed. Therefore, the juvenile court had sufficient basis to conclude, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that Father abandoned the children.3

¶14 Father also challenges the juvenile court’s finding that 

termination of his parental rights is in the children’s best interests. In 

considering the children’s best interests, the court was required to 

determine how the children would benefit from the severance or be harmed 

by the continuation of their relationship with Father. Maricopa County Juv. 

Action No. JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5, 804 P.2d 730, 734 (1990). Two factors 

the court “may properly consider in favor of severance” are the immediate 

availability of an adoptive placement and whether an existing placement is 

meeting the needs of the child. Audra T., 194 Ariz. at 377, ¶ 5, 982 P.2d at

1291.

 

3 Because we conclude the evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

order granting severance on the basis of abandonment, we need not 

consider Father’s challenge to the other statutory basis found by the court. 

See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251, ¶ 27, 995 P.2d at 687.
GAVINO C. v. DCS et al.

Decision of the Court

6

¶15 The case manager testified that the children have been in the 

same placement since they were removed from Mother in March 2011. She 

testified that the children are doing well in their placement, are closely 

bonded to their foster parents, and the foster parents wish to adopt them. 

Additionally, she opined that termination and adoption were in the 

children’s best interests. This evidence was sufficient to support the court’s 

best interests finding. 

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm the juvenile court’s order terminating Father’s 

parental rights.