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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

HANNAH C., Appellant,

v.

ANGEL C., L.C., M.C., J.C., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 22-0096 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300SV202100029

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer PC, Anthem

By Florence M. Bruemmer

Counsel for Appellee Angel C.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

FILED 9-29-2022
HANNAH C. v. ANGEL C., et al.

Decision of the Court

2

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Hannah C. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s judgment 

terminating her parental rights to her minor children based on improper

service. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Angel C. (“Father”) were previously married and 

have three children together. Mother and Father divorced in 2015, and, in 

2018, the superior court awarded Father sole legal decision-making

authority over the children. The court further ordered that Mother was not 

entitled to parenting time until she completed reunification services, but 

Mother failed to engage in those services. In September 2021, Father 

petitioned the superior court to terminate Mother’s parental rights under 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 8-533(B)(1) (abandonment) 

and -533(B)(3) (chronic abuse of alcohol or dangerous drugs).

¶3 The court set the initial hearing on Father’s petition for 

October 2021. Father was required to serve Mother with notice of the 

hearing, informing her (1) of the date, location, and time of the hearing, (2) 

that the hearing may proceed in her absence, possibly resulting in 

termination of her parental rights and (3) that failure to appear at the 

hearing may be deemed an admission of the allegations in the petition. See 

Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 351(c), (d)(1)(A) (formerly cited as Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 64).

¶4 A few weeks before the scheduled termination hearing, 

Father requested a continuance because he had been unable to serve Mother

with notice of the proceedings. The court granted Father’s motion and 

continued the hearing to December 2021.

¶5 Meanwhile, Father served Mother by publication, avowing

that was the best way to notify her of the termination hearing because she 

was evading his “significant efforts” to personally serve her. Father’s 

efforts included hiring a private investigator to perform a skip-trace to 

locate Mother, which showed Mother was living in Sacramento, California, 

and attempting to serve her eight times at that address. Father published 

notice of the termination hearing in two newspapers: one in Sacramento, 

where Mother apparently lived, and one in Yavapai County, where the 

termination was pending.

¶6 Mother failed to appear at the initial termination hearing. The 

superior court accepted Father’s affidavits, found Mother was properly

served by publication, and that she failed to appear. On its own motion,
HANNAH C. v. ANGEL C., et al.

Decision of the Court

3

the superior court continued the hearing to January 2022, stating it would 

feel “more comfortable” proceeding with the termination hearing if Mother 

had an additional opportunity to participate. The court ordered Father to

both hang a notice of the continued hearing date on Mother’s front gate and 

mail a copy of the notice to Mother’s address.

¶7 Father complied with the court’s order, but Mother

nevertheless failed to appear at the continued termination hearing. The 

court found Mother’s failure to appear was an admission of the allegations 

in the petition and proceeded with the termination hearing in her absence.

¶8 After hearing Father’s testimony, and statements from the 

children and their attorney, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights. 

The court found that Mother (1) abandoned the children and failed to 

maintain a normal parental relationship with them for over six months and 

(2) was unable to parent them due to alcohol and dangerous drug abuse

likely to continue for a prolonged period based on Mother’s past 

unsuccessful attempts at treatment. The court further found that severance 

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

by their stepmother who had “functioned as [the children’s] mother” for 

many years.

¶9 Four months after the court terminated her parental rights, 

Mother moved to extend the deadline to appeal the termination. The court 

granted Mother’s motion, and Mother appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) and 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶10 Mother argues the court lacked jurisdiction over the 

proceedings and abused its discretion when it allowed service of process by 

publication because Father did not mail her notice of the petition and 

hearing until after service by publication had occurred. As relevant here,

Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 351(d)(1)(B)(i) mandates 

service in a termination case be conducted in compliance with Arizona 

Rules (“Rule”) of Civil Procedure 4.2. Also as relevant here, Rule 4.2(f)(1)

permits service by publication when the person subject to service lives 

outside of Arizona, intentionally avoided service of process, and service by 

publication is the best means practicable to provide notice of the pending 

case. 

¶11 Indeed, Rule 4.2(f)(3) provides that “[i]f the serving party 

knows the address of the person being served, it must, on or before the date 

of first publication, mail to the person the summons and a copy of the 
HANNAH C. v. ANGEL C., et al.

Decision of the Court

4

pleading being served.” And here, Father knew Mother's address but did 

not mail her a copy of the notice until after publication of the notice. But 

any error was harmless and cured because when Mother failed to appear at 

the initial hearing after being served by publication, the court continued the 

hearing for an additional month to January 2022 and ordered Father to mail 

Mother a copy of the petition and notice of the hearing. The court did not 

proceed with the termination hearing until Father (1) made eight attempts 

to have Mother personally served, (2) served Mother through publication, 

(3) hung a copy of the petition and notice of hearing on Mother's gate, and

(4) mailed copies of the same to her home. The copy of the petition and

notice of hearing were hung on Mother’s gate and mailed on December 10,

2021—one full month before the hearing. Mother does not dispute that she

lived at that address during the month of December 2021 or that she

received either copy. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its

discretion by finding that Father complied with Rule 4.2(f) and that Mother

was properly served with notice of the termination proceeding and

hearings, and service was effectuated such that the court had jurisdiction

over the proceedings.

¶12 Mother also argues for the first time on appeal that Father did 

not make diligent efforts to serve her with notice of the termination because 

he “knew of [her] Facebook account or could have found it easily,” but

failed to contact her through social media. Mother, however, failed to move 

to set aside the termination for lack of service in the superior court. 

Accordingly, the superior court did not have an opportunity to consider 

Mother’s argument about her Facebook account, and we decline to consider 

this argument raised for the first time on appeal. See Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child 

Safety, 237 Ariz. 484, 489, ¶ 20 (App. 2015) (citation omitted).

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm. We note that by failing to challenge the grounds 

for termination or the court’s best interests findings, Mother has waived 

those arguments. See Nelson v. Rice, 198 Ariz. 563, 567, ¶ 11 n.3 (App. 2000) 

(a party’s failure to raise an argument in its opening brief waives the issue).