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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AMBER D., Appellant,

v.

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

No. 1 CA-JV 17-0043

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD528503

The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, P.C., Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Ashlee N. Hoffmann

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 10-24-2017
AMBER D. v. DCS, C.E.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Amber D. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s January 26, 

2017 order severing her parental rights. For the following reasons, we 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother is the biological parent of C.E., born in 2010. Mother 

and C.E.’s father (“Father”)1 divorced about a year later. After the divorce, 

Father exercised visitation with C.E. while Mother and C.E. lived in Texas. 

¶3 In spring 2015, Mother obtained a restraining order against 

Father after C.E. disclosed Father was physically and sexually abusing her.2

Approximately a month later, Mother asked her parents (“Grandparents”) 

to pick up C.E. for a six-week visit in Arizona.3 After dropping C.E. off with 

Grandparents, Mother returned to her home in Texas.

¶4 Eventually, Mother stopped communicating with C.E.’s 

Grandparents and after approximately six weeks, Grandparents realized 

Mother did not intend to return for C.E. Grandparents sought a temporary 

guardianship in September 2014 and filed a private dependency petition in 

March 2015, when the guardianship expired. The Department of Child 

 

1 Father’s parental rights were severed in October 2016, and he is not 

a party to this appeal.

2 According to the record, authorities investigated Father in 

connection with the alleged sexual assault of C.E. 

3 Mother asserted at trial she informed Grandparents that she wanted 

C.E. to be with them in Arizona to keep her safe from Father, but 

Grandmother testified and the superior court found that Mother had not so 

advised Grandparents. 
AMBER D. v. DCS, C.E.

Decision of the Court

3

Safety (“DCS”) substituted as petitioner and filed an amended dependency 

petition alleging C.E. was dependent because Mother neglected her and 

was unable or unwilling to parent her. A month later C.E. was found 

dependent as to Mother. 

¶5 Following Grandparents’ filing of the dependency petition, 

Mother planned for Grandparents to adopt C.E. Mother engaged in 

supervised phone and Skype calls and approximately three in-person 

meetings with C.E., but she was unable to support C.E. financially. In early 

2016, Mother moved to Pennsylvania for about a month and began dating 

a man who lived in Indiana; Mother later moved to Indiana to live with him

and his children. 

¶6 In August 2016, DCS asked the superior court to change the 

case plan from reunification to severance and adoption. Although Mother 

had not previously objected to Grandparents’ possible adoption of C.E., she 

objected, but the court granted DCS’s request. DCS then moved to sever 

Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and fifteen 

months in an out-of-home placement pursuant to court order. See Ariz. 

Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-533(B)(1), (8)(c). 

¶7 After a two-day severance hearing, the superior court severed 

Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment and fifteen 

months in care. As to abandonment, the court found Mother walked away 

from her parental role with C.E. in June 2014. It found Mother supported 

adoption by Grandparents from the filing of the dependency petition in 

March 2015 to August 2016, and that Mother’s sporadic appearances and 

lack of parenting were consistent with her decision to leave C.E. in 

Grandparents’ care and to have her rights severed. The court further noted

Mother did not have a stable home, did not understand the trauma C.E. had 

suffered due to Father’s abuse, and never asked C.E.’s healthcare providers 

to help her understand that trauma. It concluded that “[w]hatever Mother’s 

reason for minimizing her contact with [C.E.], abandonment occurred 

nonetheless.” 

¶8 As to the fifteen-months-in-care ground, the superior court 

repeated its finding that before August 2016 Mother intended for 

Grandparents to adopt C.E. It found that during these months, there was 

“no true parenting during her short visits to Arizona or the phone calls” 

and “no attempt to participate in the recommended services.” It further 

found Mother’s lack of a stable and safe home throughout the dependency, 

cross-country move, and failure to find a job and housing were evidence of 

her instability, and that it was premature to find Mother’s circumstance in 
AMBER D. v. DCS, C.E.

Decision of the Court

4

Indiana would remedy her parenting issues. The superior court concluded 

Mother had not “remedied her understanding of [C.E.]’s challenges nor 

done anything of substance to remain in her life as a parent” and there was 

a substantial likelihood that Mother would not be capable of exercising 

proper and effective parental care and control in the near future.

¶9 The superior court concluded severance was in C.E.’s best 

interest because C.E. had lived with Grandparents since July 2014, was 

medically and developmentally on track, had received the support and 

therapy she needed to overcome the trauma she experienced in Texas, and 

would continue to grow in a healthy environment under Grandparents’ 

care. Furthermore, it found Grandparents would adopt C.E.

¶10 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) and 12-

2101(A)(1), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 103(A).

DISCUSSION

¶11 Mother argues the superior court erred by severing her 

parental rights because insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding 

of abandonment.

4

¶12 The superior court is in the best position to weigh the 

evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve 

disputed facts. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 

(App. 2009) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not reweigh the 

evidence, and we will affirm a severance order that is supported by 

reasonable evidence. Id. (citations omitted). 

¶13 A parent’s rights in the care, custody, and management of her

children are fundamental, but not absolute. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 

279, 284, ¶ 24 (2005). A court may sever those rights if it finds: (1) clear and 

convincing evidence of one of the statutory grounds for severance in A.R.S. 

§ 8-533(B), and (2) by a preponderance of the evidence that severance is in 

 

4 If clear and convincing evidence supports either of the statutory 

grounds on which the superior court ordered severance, we need not 

address the appellant’s arguments pertaining to the other ground. Jesus M. 

v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002). We therefore 

do not address Mother’s claims regarding the court’s fifteen-months-in-care 

finding.
AMBER D. v. DCS, C.E.

Decision of the Court

5

the child’s best interest. A.R.S. § 8-533(B); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 281-82, 288, 

¶¶ 7, 41.

¶14 The superior court may sever the parent-child relationship 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) if “[t]he parent has abandoned the child.” 

Abandonment is “the failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and 

to maintain regular contact with the child, including providing normal 

supervision,” and “includes a judicial finding that the parent has made only 

minimal efforts to support and communicate with the child.” A.R.S. § 8-

531(1). 

¶15 Abandonment is measured by a parent’s conduct rather than 

the parent’s intent, and “[w]hat constitutes reasonable support, regular 

contact, and normal supervision varies from case to case.” Michael J. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 250, ¶¶ 18, 20 (2000) (citation omitted).

When circumstances prevent a parent from exercising traditional methods 

of bonding with a child, the parent “must act persistently to establish the 

relationship however possible and must vigorously assert [his or her] legal 

rights to the extent necessary.” Pima Cty. Juv. Action No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. 

86, 98 (1994).

¶16 We find no abuse of discretion. The record amply supports 

the superior court’s finding that Mother “walked away from her parental 

role” with C.E. in June 2014 and that “Mother’s sporadic appearances and 

lack of parenting [were] consistent with her decision to leave [C.E.] in the 

care of [Grandparents] and to have her rights severed.” 

¶17 At the time of the severance hearing, C.E. had lived with 

Grandparents for over two years, and Mother admitted she had not been 

alone with C.E. even once during that time. Mother, the DCS case manager, 

and Grandmother testified Mother wanted Grandparents to adopt C.E. 

until approximately four months before the severance trial. The DCS case 

manager testified Mother visited C.E. only four or five times over two years, 

and only when she was in Arizona for court appearances. Grandmother 

stated that when Mother did visit, she generally did not spend the entire 

day with C.E. but instead would spend the time on her phone with others 

or would leave the house, leaving C.E. behind. Mother called C.E. via 

Skype only two or three times despite Grandparents’ willingness to 

facilitate further calls. Grandmother and the DCS case manager also 

testified Mother went four to six weeks without speaking with C.E. via 

telephone, and the DCS case manager denied that Mother had regularly 

sent gifts, cards, or letters to C.E. even though she of course knew 
AMBER D. v. DCS, C.E.

Decision of the Court

6

Grandparents’ address. Grandmother testified Mother had not provided 

any financial support for C.E. at any time over the past two years. 

¶18 Additionally, the DCS case manager stated Mother had not 

maintained a normal parental relationship with C.E., inquired about C.E.’s 

emotional needs, or attended any of the monthly Child and Family Team 

Meetings in the past six months and accordingly, she had “no idea of 

[C.E.]’s condition.” The record demonstrates Mother did not “act 

persistently to establish the relationship however possible” or “vigorously 

assert [her] legal rights to the extent necessary.” No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. at 

98. For these reasons, reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s 

order severing Mother’s parental rights.

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm the superior court’s order.