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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

TIMOTHY W., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, T.W. Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0184 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015JD201700072

The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

The Stavris Law Firm, PLLC, Scottsdale

By Alison Stavris

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Autumn Spritzer

Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

FILED 9-25-2018
TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Timothy W. (“Father”) appeals from the termination of his 

parental rights to his son, T.W.

1 He argues that the superior court erred by 

concluding that termination was in the child’s best interests. Because 

reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s findings, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Father is the biological parent of the child, born in August 

2010. The boy lived with his mother (“Mother”) in Utah until July 2017,

when Mother sent him to stay with his paternal grandmother

(“Grandmother”) in Arizona. There, the child disclosed to Grandmother 

that he was being physically abused in Mother’s home. 

¶3 After the boy’s disclosure, Grandmother reported the abuse 

to the Department of Child Safety, which initiated an investigation. The boy 

disclosed to a DCS investigator that he was afraid to return to Mother’s care

because Mother’s boyfriend had physically abused him. He also disclosed 

that Mother knew of the abuse and sometimes participated or thanked her 

boyfriend for disciplining him. The investigator then contacted Father, who 

indicated that he was unable to care for his child because of his housing and 

financial restraints. Father also told the investigator that he had a history of 

substance abuse with methamphetamine and marijuana, and that he had 

used both within the past month. 

¶4 The superior court found the child dependent as to Father in 

November 2017. DCS offered rehabilitative services to Father, including

drug testing, parenting classes, and supervised visits. Father did not 

participate in any of the offered services.

¶5 At the request of DCS, the superior court changed the case

plan to severance and adoption and, in April 2018, the superior court held 

 

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W.

Decision of the Court

3

a contested termination hearing. At that time, although the boy had been 

living with Grandmother, DCS temporarily placed him in foster care 

because of allegations of inappropriate discipline by Grandmother.

2 The 

removal and new placement of the boy caused him to misbehave and 

become very emotional. Because of the disruption in the child’s placement, 

Father requested a continuance, which the superior court denied.3

¶6 At the termination hearing, DCS personnel testified to the 

boy’s disclosure of the abuse inflicted on him while in Mother’s care, as well 

as Father’s substance abuse and failure to participate in DCS services. A 

case manager testified that Grandmother was willing to adopt her 

grandson, and that DCS hoped to return the boy to her. The case manager 

explained that the boy wanted to live with Grandmother but if adoption by 

Grandmother was not possible based on the allegations against her, the boy

was a loving, funny, and sweet child who was otherwise adoptable. Finally, 

the case manager testified that termination of Father’s parental rights was 

in the child’s best interests because Father failed to participate in services 

offered by DCS and had not addressed his substance abuse. 

¶7 The superior court terminated the parental rights of both 

parents. Specifically, the superior court terminated Father’s parental rights 

under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 8-533(B)(3), finding by clear 

and convincing evidence that he was unable to discharge his parental 

responsibilities due to a history of chronic drug abuse. The court also found 

by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of Father’s parental 

rights was in the boy’s best interests. The court reasoned that termination 

would benefit the child by enabling adoption by Grandmother or an 

alternative caregiver, which would provide permanency and stability.

DISCUSSION

¶8 To terminate parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B), the 

superior court must find that a statutory ground exists by clear and 

convincing evidence. A.R.S. § 8-537(B). The court must also find by a 

preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child’s best 

interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶¶ 41-42

(2005). Here, Father does not challenge the statutory ground for termination 

 

2 At a July 2018 review hearing, DCS informed the superior court that 

the boy is again placed with Grandmother and she is in the process of 

adopting the child.

3 Father does not appeal this ruling. 
TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W.

Decision of the Court

4

of his parental rights; he argues only that the superior court erred by finding 

that termination was in the child’s best interests. 

¶9 As the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, the superior 

court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, 

judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Ariz. Dep't of 

Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). We therefore view 

the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to 

affirming the superior court’s order, Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 

Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App. 2002), and will reverse only if no reasonable 

evidence supports its factual findings, Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 

Ariz. 282, 287, ¶ 16 (App. 2016). “We do not reweigh the evidence.” Jordan 

C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009).

¶10 A determination that termination of parental rights is in a 

child’s best interests must include a finding either that the child will benefit 

from termination or that the child will be harmed by the continuation of the 

relationship. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 379, ¶ 30

(App. 2010). Evidence that an adoptive placement is immediately available 

or that a child is otherwise adoptable can provide a basis (improved 

permanency and stability) for determining that the child will benefit from 

termination. Id. 

¶11 Here, Father argues termination was not in the boy’s best 

interests because he was not in an adoptive placement at the time of the 

hearing and had recently suffered emotional trauma upon being removed 

from Grandmother’s home. But the court found that regardless of the 

child’s current placement, another adoptive placement could be located. 

This finding is supported by testimony from the DCS case manager that the 

boy is adoptable. Thus, reasonable evidence supported the superior court’s 

finding that termination was in the child’s best interests.
TIMOTHY W. v. DCS, T.W.

Decision of the Court

5

CONCLUSION

¶12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

termination order.