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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KALEB P., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, V.P., B.P., Appellee.

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0024 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD27467

The Honorable Robert Ian Brooks, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 6-10-2021
KALEB P. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Kaleb P. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to V.P. and B.P. (collectively “children”). 

Mother is not a party to this appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In September 2015, V.P. was born substance exposed to 

methamphetamine, so the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) took 

custody of her. DCS filed a dependency petition, alleging Father’s inability 

to parent V.P. due to his incarceration and substance abuse. Father failed to 

attend the February 2016 dependency hearing, despite already being 

released from jail. The juvenile court found V.P. dependent and approved 

a concurrent case plan of family reunification and severance and adoption.

¶3 DCS filed a separate dependency petition regarding B.P. in 

June 2017, alleging Father’s inability to parent due to substance abuse, 

mental health, and an inability to properly supervise B.P. DCS provided 

various reunification services, including substance abuse testing and 

treatment, a psychological evaluation, visitation, counseling, and a family 

reunification team. Father successfully participated in reunification 

services, so DCS moved to return both children to Father’s physical 

custody. In January 2018, the juvenile court ordered the children to remain 

dependent, but placed the children back in Father’s care. The court 

dismissed the dependency petitions two months later. 

¶4 In March 2019, the police and DCS received reports alleging 

that Father’s girlfriend physically abused V.P. and that Father left the 

children unattended while abusing substances. Father first showed a 

willingness to cooperate with DCS, but then he hid his whereabouts. DCS 

received another report in May 2019, alleging Father left the children alone 

in a hotel room. Hotel staff found V.P. eating off the floor and B.P. chewing 

a piece of plastic. DCS removed the children, who both tested positive for 

methamphetamines, and placed them in an out-of-home foster placement. 
KALEB P. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 DCS filed a new dependency petition, alleging Father’s 

inability to parent due to substance abuse, domestic violence, inability to 

supervise the children, and inability to provide for their needs. Father 

objected to the domestic violence ground but pled no contest to the other 

allegations. The court approved a concurrent case plan of family 

reunification and severance and adoption. DCS referred Father to 

supervised visitation and substance abuse treatment and testing, but Father 

failed to meaningfully participate. Father only visited the children once 

between May and August 2019. DCS also provided V.P. with some 

therapeutic services. 

¶6 In September 2019, Father pled guilty to committing seconddegree burglary and he received a 2.5-year prison sentence. Father will have 

to live in a halfway house upon release and he will be on intensive 

probation for another 2.5 years. A DCS psychologist recommended against 

the children visiting Father in-person, but DCS facilitated at least five

supervised phone calls since April 2020. In April 2020, the juvenile court 

changed the case plan from family reunification to severance and adoption. 

DCS petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights on length of sentence 

and prior removal grounds. 

¶7 The juvenile court held a multi-day severance hearing. Father 

testified that he would need “at least a year” to prove his parental abilities. 

He also admitted that he understood needing to complete reunification 

services, but that he failed to do so. The court severed Father’s parental 

rights on both grounds.

¶8 Father timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S 

§§ 8-235(A) and 12-120.21(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶9 We review the severance of parental rights for an abuse of 

discretion. Titus S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 365, 369, ¶ 15 (App. 

2018). We will uphold the juvenile court’s findings of fact “if supported by 

adequate evidence in the record.” Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 

Ariz. 445, 452, ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 243, 247 

(1979)). “The juvenile court, as the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, 

is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the 

credibility of witnesses, and make appropriate findings.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). 

¶10 Before irrevocably severing parental rights, “due process 

requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and 
KALEB P. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

4

convincing evidence.” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 747–48 (1982). 

“[S]uch a standard adequately conveys to the factfinder the level of 

subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due 

process.” Id. at 769. To sever the parent-child relationship, the juvenile court 

must find, by clear and convincing evidence, parental unfitness based on at 

least one statutory ground under A.R.S. § 8-533(B). Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 

Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005).

¶11 The juvenile court may sever Father’s parental rights based 

on prior removal if: (1) an out-of-home placement cared for the children

under court order; (2) DCS made diligent efforts to provide appropriate 

reunification services; (3) the juvenile court restored Father’s legal custody; 

and (4) within 18 months after being returned, DCS again removed the 

children from Father’s custody, the children are in an out-of-home 

placement under the supervision of the juvenile court, DCS, or a licensed 

child welfare agency, and Father cannot discharge his parental 

responsibilities. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(11). 

¶12 The juvenile court removed the children from Father’s care 

during the initial dependencies. The court then returned the children to 

Father’s legal custody in March 2018, when it dismissed the dependencies. 

DCS removed the children 14 months later and placed them with a foster 

family. And Father’s current incarceration prevents him from discharging 

his parental responsibilities.

¶13 DCS provided significant reunification services during the 

initial dependencies. These services included substance abuse treatment, 

drug testing, a psychological evaluation, and visitation. Father’s successful 

participation in services led the juvenile court to restore his legal custody.

Father argues DCS provided no reunification services while incarcerated.

But the record suggests otherwise. DCS’s psychologist recommended 

against in-person visits, but Father received several supervised phone calls. 

And Father’s argument does not account for the four months preceding his 

incarceration, during which DCS provided supervised visitation, drug 

testing, substance abuse treatment, and therapeutic services for V.P. See 

Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 94, ¶ 20 (App. 2009) (DCS 

must provide efforts with a reasonable prospect of success in reuniting the 

family). DCS provided these services, before changing the case plan to 

severance, in support of its goal to reunify Father with the children. Father 

simply failed to utilize these services.

¶14 Father also contends the “parental responsibilities” element 

requires more reunification services to fairly assess his ability to parent the 
KALEB P. v. DCS, et al. 

Decision of the Court

5

children. We disagree. Father’s incarceration, and his inevitable halfway 

house stay, prevent him from assuming any parental responsibility. 

¶15 The record supports the juvenile court’s finding that DCS 

provided appropriate reunification services. The court thus did not abuse 

its discretion by severing Father’s parental rights based on the prior 

removal ground. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(11). Given this determination, we 

need not address the other severance ground (length of sentence) in the 

petition. See Michael J. v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 251, ¶ 27 (2000). 

CONCLUSION

¶16 We affirm.