NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

NATHAN C., Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, T.C., A.C., 

Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 13-0300

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300JD201200032

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Anthem

By Florence M. Bruemmer, Tanya R. Imming-Hill

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Laura J. Huff

Counsel for Appellees
NATHAN C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Donn Kessler and Judge Patricia K. Norris joined.

P O R T L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Nathan C. (“Father”) appeals the order terminating his 

parental rights to his children, T.C. and A.C. He argues that the juvenile

court erred by terminating his rights in absentia because he demonstrated 

good cause for his failure to appear. Finding no error, we affirm. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Michelle G. (“Mother”) are the biological parents 

of T.C. and A.C. Mother, however, has not been in the children’s lives for 

the past decade. Although Father was in the children’s lives, he handed 

over the daily care of his children to his mother and sister. 

¶3 The Arizona Department of Economic Security (“ADES”) 

received a report in March 2012 that the grandmother and aunt had 

abused A.C. by hitting him with an umbrella. Both children were taken 

into temporary custody, and ADES filed a dependency petition against 

the parents on April 4, 2012. The juvenile court subsequently found the 

children to be dependent as to both parents and approved a case plan of 

family reunification. The children remained in foster care.

¶4 At the July 16, 2013 review hearing, the court granted the

request to change the case plan from family reunification to severance and 

adoption, and ADES filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of 

Father and Mother. The petition alleged that the children had been away 

from Father and in out-of-home care for fifteen months or longer and 

Father had been unable to remedy the circumstances that caused the 

children to be in out-of-home care.

 1 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the superior 

court’s ruling. Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 376, 

¶ 13, 231 P.3d 377, 380 (App. 2010). 
NATHAN C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 Father attended the initial severance hearing by telephone. 

He, however, failed to attend the scheduled pretrial conference on 

October 22, 2013. ADES, as a result, moved to proceed in absentia. The

court found that Father failed to show good cause for his failure to appear

and granted the request. The children’s case manager testified and

Father’s lawyer was given the opportunity to cross-examine her. The 

court terminated Father’s rights and directed ADES to lodge an order for 

its consideration. The court subsequently filed its signed formal findings 

of fact and conclusions of law, and order, terminating Father’s parental 

rights to the two children. Father timely appealed. 2 

DISCUSSION

¶6 On appeal, Father argues that the juvenile court erred by 

conducting the severance hearing in his absence because his counsel 

demonstrated good cause for his non-appearance. We disagree.

¶7 “If a parent does not appear at a pretrial conference, . . . the 

court, after determining that the parent has been instructed as provided in 

§ 8-535, may find that the parent has waived the parent’s legal rights and 

is deemed to have admitted the allegations of the petition by the failure to 

appear.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-537(C);3 accord Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct

64(C). If the court cannot find good cause why the parent did not appear, 

the court can terminate the parent’s rights “based on the record and 

evidence presented.” A.R.S. § 8-537(C); accord Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct 64(C).

¶8 Whether a parent has failed to demonstrate good cause to 

excuse his or her absence from the proceeding is a ruling we review for an 

abuse of discretion. Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 96, 101, 

¶ 15, 158 P.3d 225, 230 (App. 2007). “Good cause for a failure to appear is 

largely discretionary” and we will not disturb it unless “manifestly 

unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable 

reasons.” Id. (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). To 

demonstrate good cause, “the moving party must show that (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect exists and (2) a meritorious 

defense to the claims exists.” Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 217 

Ariz. 299, 304, ¶ 16, 173 P.3d 463, 468.

 

2 Mother’s parental rights were also severed. She, however, is not a party 

to this appeal. 

3 Absent any changes material to this decision, we cite to the current 

version of the applicable statutes.
NATHAN C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Here, Father had notice of the October 22, 2013 pretrial 

hearing date and was aware of the consequences for his failure to appear. 

He had participated in the initial severance hearing in August 2013, and 

had received and signed Form III.4 Father did not, however, appear at the 

scheduled pretrial conference. When asked by the court where Father 

was, Father’s counsel replied:

Your Honor, I do not know. He did appear for 

the [October 4, 2013]. . . mediation. He was on 

the phone. I do know that he does not have 

transportation currently. His mother is in the 

hospital and he appeared telephonically at the 

mediation because he did not have 

transportation. Since then, I have not spoken 

to him. I have not called him to remind him 

about today’s hearing.

¶10 The court found the explanation insufficient to establish 

good cause for Father’s failure to appear. Moreover, Father did not 

provide the court with any additional information explaining his absence,

by affidavit or otherwise, at any time prior to filing his appeal. He did not 

attempt to set aside the entry of default by filing a motion for 

reconsideration or motion for new trial.

 4 Father was provided with and signed Form III, which stated: 

You are required to attend all termination hearings. If you 

cannot attend a court hearing, you must prove to the Court 

that you had good cause for not attending. If you fail to 

attend the Initial Termination Hearing, Termination PreTrial Conference, Status Conference, or Termination 

Adjudication Hearing without good cause, the Court may 

determine that you have waived your legal rights and 

admitted the grounds alleged in the motion/petition for 

termination. The hearings may go forward in your absence, 

and the Court may terminate your parental rights to your 

child based on the record and evidence presented.
NATHAN C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

5

¶11 Father now argues that his absence was justified for two 

reasons. First, he contends that because he appeared telephonically at the 

previous hearing, the court should have contacted him for the pretrial 

conference. And, he argues that ADES should have provided him with 

transportation. As a result, he argues that the court erred by not 

continuing the hearing until the scheduled trial date of November 20, 

2013. We disagree. 

¶12 Father did not demonstrate why he was not at the pretrial 

hearing.5 Although his lawyer stated that he appeared for the mediation 

telephonically because he did not have transportation, the failure to have 

transportation or make other arrangements to appear may not be good 

cause for the failure to appear. See, e.g., Bob H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

225 Ariz. 279, 282, ¶¶ 11-13, 237 P.3d 632, 635 (App. 2010). Moreover, 

there is nothing in the record to suggest that the juvenile court was asked 

to allow him to participate telephonically and nothing to suggest that the 

court should have considered the issue sua sponte. And, counsel did not 

ask the court at the hearing to allow her to attempt to contact him 

telephonically.

¶13 Additionally, there is nothing in the record to suggest that 

Father asked ADES for transportation assistance, or that it was withheld 

unreasonably. Because there is nothing in the record that suggests why 

Father was absent on the day of the pretrial conference hearing, the court 

did not abuse its discretion by finding that he did not have an excuse for 

not being present. See Richas v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 512, 515, 652 P.2d 

1035, 1038 (1982) (stating that “[w]here there is no explanation for the 

delay, there is no excuse shown and no legal ground” to support a finding 

of good cause). Consequently, the court did not abuse its discretion in 

proceeding to take testimony to terminate Father’s parental rights. 6 

 5 There was a report that Father worked the graveyard shift, which made 

it difficult for him to visit with the children, but the court had no other 

information. 

6 Because Father did not attempt to have his default set aside before filing 

the appeal, we do not address for the first time on appeal whether he had 

a meritorious defense. Kimu P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 39, 44 

n.3, ¶ 19, 178 P.3d 511, 516 n.3 (App. 2008). 
NATHAN C. v. ADES, et al.

Decision of the Court

6

CONCLUSION

¶14 Based on the foregoing, we affirm the termination of Father’s 

parental rights to his children, T.C. and A.C.