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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MATTHEW R., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, D.M., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 21-0044

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD533509

The Honorable David K. Udall, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Public Advocate, Mesa

By Suzanne W. Sanchez

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Thomas Jose

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 10-26-2021
MATTHEW R. v. DCS, D.M.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Matthew R. (“Father”) challenges the juvenile court’s order 

designating D.M. dependent. Because we discern no error, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Larinique M. (“Mother”) are the biological parents 

of D.M., born in January 2005. They never married. In 2011, the superior 

court approved a stipulated parenting plan in which Mother and Father 

agreed to evenly divide parenting time and legal decision-making. For 

most of his life, however, D.M. lived with his Mother and her family. D.M. 

saw Father “once every year or year and a half.”

¶3 Mother died in 2020. Father invited D.M. to live with him in 

Idaho. D.M. declined, choosing to stay in Arizona and live with his 

maternal grandmother. Maternal grandmother then petitioned to find 

D.M. dependent as to Father and asked to be appointed D.M.’s guardian.

DCS filed a substitute dependency petition on grounds of neglect, alleging:

“Father has neglected the child by failing to provide for the child’s needs 

and providing parental care and supervision. Father has not had any 

contact with [D.M.] in at least one year. Father has not provided any 

financial support for the child.”

¶4 The court held a contested dependency hearing in January 

2021, where it learned that Father had provided no financial support to 

D.M. since April 2020 (when Father’s child support wage garnishment 

expired), and Father had minimal contact with D.M. from April 2020 to 

January 2021 (3.5 hours on telephone and 55 text messages). The court 

found D.M. dependent as to Father on grounds of neglect, concluding the 

“allegations of the petition are true by a preponderance of the evidence,”

adding “[t]he factual basis is father’s failure to maintain a normal parental 

relationship with the child.” Father timely appeals. We have jurisdiction.

See A.R.S. §§ 8-235 and 12-120.21(A)(1).
MATTHEW R. v. DCS, D.M.

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 A “dependent child” is defined as a child who needs “proper 

and effective parental care and control,” but “has no parent or guardian 

willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control.” A.R.S. § 

8-201(15)(a)(i). Our primary concern in a dependency adjudication is the 

child’s best interest. Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 525, 527, ¶ 10

(App. 2018). We review the superior court’s dependency order for an abuse 

of discretion, accepting its findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will 

affirm unless the order is unsupported by reasonable evidence. Id. at ¶ 9.

¶6 Father contends the juvenile court did not include sufficient 

factual findings in its dependency order. To ensure an effective and 

appropriate review of dependency proceedings on appeal, the juvenile 

court must “[s]et forth specific findings of fact in support of a finding of 

dependency,” either in a signed order or minute entry. Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 

55(E)(3); A.R.S. § 8-844(C)(1)(a)(ii) (juvenile court must provide “[t]he 

factual basis for the dependency”).

¶7 Because we discern no error, we affirm. In its dependency 

order, the court found the petition’s allegations were true by a 

preponderance of the evidence, including that (1) “Father has neglected the 

child by failing to provide for the child’s needs and providing parental care 

and supervision,” (2) “Father has not had any contact with [D.M.] in at least 

one year,” and (3) “Father has not provided any financial support for the 

child.” These findings support a dependency adjudication. See A.R.S. § 8-

201(15)(a)(i).

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.