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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

GORDON O., KARRIE O., Appellants,

v.

KILEY O., Appellee.

No. 1 CA-JV 20-0230 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900SV201900023

The Honorable Michala M. Ruechel, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Riggs Ellsworth & Porter, PLC, Show Low

By Michael R. Ellsworth

Counsel for Appellants

Weagant Law Office PLC, Florence

By Megan K. Weagant

Counsel for Appellee

FILED 12-31-2020
GORDON O., KARRIE O. v. KILEY O.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

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

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Gordon O. (“Grandfather”) and Karrie O. (“Grandmother”) 

(collectively “Grandparents”) appeal the juvenile court’s order denying 

their petition to sever Kiley O.’s (“Mother[‘s]”) parental rights to her minor 

child, R.B. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 R.B. was born in 2009 to Mother and David B., who is not a 

party to this appeal. R.B. began permanently living with Grandparents, 

Mother’s parents, in August 2018. Mother left R.B. with Grandparents for 

the last weekend before the start of the 2018-2019 school year. She failed to 

return by the following Monday, or even communicate with Grandparents 

about retrieving R.B. Grandparents then filed for temporary legal decisionmaking authority over R.B., which the Navajo County Superior Court 

granted. The order permits Mother some parenting time if she complies 

with urinalysis tests, which Grandparents may request once per week. 

¶3 Grandparents filed a severance petition in October 2019, 

seeking to terminate Mother’s parental rights on the grounds of 

abandonment, neglect, and substance abuse. 

¶4 The juvenile court held a one-day termination hearing in May 

2020. Grandmother testified that Mother visited R.B. in-person at least four 

times since January 2019. Grandmother described one of R.B.’s overnight 

visits with Mother, during Christmas 2019, and how R.B. was happy to 

receive a present from Mother. Grandmother also stated that Mother could 

have enjoyed more access to R.B. if she were willing to contact 

Grandparents. Grandfather also testified, adding that R.B. “seems a lot 

happier” and is improving at school. 

¶5 Mother testified that she routinely requested to see R.B., but 

Grandparents refused. Mother participated in a rehabilitation program 

from February to May 2019. Shortly after leaving the program, she lived 

with Grandparents and R.B. for one week. In October 2019, Mother also saw 
GORDON O., KARRIE O. v. KILEY O.

Decision of the Court

3

R.B. without prior approval when Grandparents permitted Mother’s exhusband Greg O. (father of Mother’s other child) to have R.B for Halloween. 

¶6 The juvenile court ruled that Grandparents failed to prove 

any asserted ground by clear and convincing evidence. Grandparents 

timely appealed, challenging only the court’s ruling on abandonment. We 

have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶7 To prevail on their petition to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights based on abandonment, Grandparents had to prove that ground by 

clear and convincing evidence. See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 196 

Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 12 (2000). Though we review issues of statutory 

interpretation de novo, we view the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the superior court’s denial of a motion to terminate parental 

rights and review that ruling for an abuse of discretion. Kenneth B. v. Tina 

B., 226 Ariz. 33, 36, ¶ 12 (App. 2010).

¶8 Grandparents argue the juvenile court abused its discretion 

by finding that Mother did not abandon R.B. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1).

Abandonment is:

[T]he failure of a parent to provide reasonable 

support and to maintain regular contact with 

the child, including providing normal 

supervision. Abandonment includes a judicial 

finding that a parent has made only minimal 

efforts to support and communicate with the 

child. Failure to maintain a normal parental 

relationship with the child without just cause 

for a period of six months constitutes prima 

facie evidence of abandonment. 

A.R.S. § 8-531(1). 

¶9 We do not measure abandonment by a parent’s subjective 

intent, but by the parent’s conduct. Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 18.

Grandparents contend Mother’s conduct does not amount to “regular 

contact” because Mother has only visited R.B. five times since 2019. What 

constitutes regular contact varies from case to case. Pima Cnty. Juv. Action 

No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. 86, 96 (1994).
GORDON O., KARRIE O. v. KILEY O.

Decision of the Court

4

¶10 The parties presented conflicting testimony regarding the 

frequency of Mother’s efforts to call, text message, or visit R.B. But 

Grandmother testified Mother visited R.B. at least four times during 2019. 

Mother also spent at least one week with R.B., living in Grandparents’ 

home, when she left her rehab program in May 2019. And Grandmother 

described one of Mother’s attempts to see R.B. on Halloween, albeit against 

the temporary legal decision-making order. 

¶11 The juvenile court determined Mother provided no normal 

supervision for a period of two years. The court also found that Mother’s 

contact with R.B. was regular and she made efforts to establish and 

strengthen her maternal bond with R.B. But the juvenile court noted that 

Mother’s ability to maintain a relationship with R.B. “was probably more 

through the efforts of [Grandparents] and [R.B.] than Mother.” The statute 

does not distinguish between contact initiated by a child, parent, or third 

party, when determining whether the parent maintained requisite contact 

to avoid an abandonment finding. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1). Grandparents

essentially ask us to reweigh the evidence and reach a new conclusion. We 

decline to do so. See Joelle M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 525, 528, ¶ 18 

(App. 2018). The record contains reasonable evidence to support the 

juvenile court’s findings and we find no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.