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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TAMMY P., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, E.P., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0456

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD531123

The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Amanda Adams

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 6-27-2019
TAMMY P. v. DCS, E.P.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

T H U M M A, Chief Judge:

¶1 Tammy P. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her 

parental rights to her son, E.P. The Department of Child Safety (DCS) 

concedes the superior court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order under the 

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). 

Accordingly, the order terminating Mother’s parental rights to E.P. is 

vacated and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision. 

¶2 In August 2017, DCS took E.P. into custody and filed a 

dependency petition. Mother stated she and E.P. lived in Arkansas and

planned to return there, and DCS concedes Arkansas was E.P.’s “home 

state” under the UCCJEA at that time. DCS asserted Arizona had temporary 

emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because E.P. was present in 

Arizona and “threatened with mistreatment or abuse.” See Ariz. Rev. Stat.

(A.R.S.) § 25-1034(A) (2019). In October 2017, the superior court found E.P. 

dependent as to Mother. In doing so, the court found out-of-home care was 

“necessary to protect the child’s welfare,” but did not specify it was 

exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

¶3 In April 2018, DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights. Following a termination hearing, in November 2018, the court 

granted the motion without complying with the UCCJEA, either by 

conferring with Arkansas or concluding child custody in Arizona had 

become final. Mother timely appealed.

¶4 In February 2019, at DCS’ request, this court stayed the appeal 

and remanded to the superior court “to allow that court to confer with 

Arkansas – the child’s home state – as required under” the UCCJEA. At a 

telephonic conference in April 2019, the Arizona and Arkansas courts 

“agree[d] that it is appropriate for jurisdiction to remain in Maricopa 

County, Arizona,” and this court subsequently reinstated Mother’s appeal. 

DCS then filed a Notice of Concession of Error, stating the superior court 

lacked jurisdiction to terminate Mother’s rights to E.P. because “the court’s 
TAMMY P. v. DCS, E.P.

Decision of the Court

3

emergency jurisdiction had not yet ripened into permanent jurisdiction by 

the time of the September 2018 termination hearing.”

¶5 The UCCJEA grants jurisdiction over child custody 

proceedings to the child’s “home state,” meaning “[t]he state in which a 

child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately 

before the commencement of a child custody proceeding, including any 

period during which that person is temporarily absent from that state.” 

A.R.S. §§ 25-1031(A), -1002(7)(a). Even when Arizona is not a child’s home 

state, however, an Arizona court may exercise “temporary emergency 

jurisdiction if the child is present in this state” and temporary emergency 

jurisdiction is necessary to protect the child from a threat of mistreatment 

or abuse. A.R.S. § 25-1034(A). When no child custody proceeding has been 

brought in the child’s “home state,” a child custody determination made 

under temporary emergency jurisdiction “becomes a final determination, if 

it so provides” and, in that case, Arizona then “becomes the home state of the 

child.” A.R.S. § 25-1034(B) (emphasis added).

¶6 DCS concedes the superior court did not properly comply 

with the UCCJEA: 

Here, Arkansas was clearly the child’s home 

state. And the Arizona juvenile court clearly 

had emergency jurisdiction on the basis of the 

child’s and Mother’s presence here and her 

inability to care for him. But because the 

juvenile court’s order adjudicating [E.P.] 

dependent did not specify that it would become 

final at some later date (if proceedings were not 

commenced in Arkansas) under A.R.S. § 25-

1034(B), the court’s emergency jurisdiction had 

not yet ripened into permanent jurisdiction by 

the time of the termination hearing. 

Furthermore, although Arkansas subsequently 

relinquished jurisdiction to Arizona, see A.R.S. § 

25-1037, at which point Arizona’s child custody 

determination became final and Arizona 

became [E.P.’s] home state, see A.R.S. § 25-

1034(B), this Court has held that a court’s 

UCCJEA determinations cannot be applied 

retroactively. See Monique B. v. Duncan, 245 Ariz. 

371, [376] ¶ 17 (App. 2018).
TAMMY P. v. DCS, E.P.

Decision of the Court

4

¶7 Having considered DCS’ brief and the relevant portions of the 

record, this court accepts this concession of error. Accordingly, the order 

terminating Mother’s rights to E.P. is vacated and this matter is remanded

for proceedings consistent with this decision. Because this court accepts 

DCS’ concession of error and the superior court lacked jurisdiction to enter 

the termination order, this court need not, and explicitly does not, consider 

Mother’s substantive arguments on appeal.