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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C. P., 

C. P., and G. P.

No. 1 CA-JV 24-0068 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD33591

The Honorable Todd F. Lang, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Czop Law Fim, PLLC, Higley

By Steven Czop

Counsel for Appellant Christina P.

Robert D. Rosanelli, Phoenix

Counsel for Appellant Joel P.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson

By Jennifer R. Blum

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 08-20-2024
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.P., et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe

joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Christina P. (“Mother”) and Joel P. (“Father”) separately 

appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights. For the 

following reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Father (“Parents”) have five children in common: 

(1) David, (2) Logan, (3) Claire, (4) Cassie, and (5) Grant (pseudonyms). 

Parents have a long history of substance abuse, criminal convictions, and 

DCS involvement dating back to early 2016. 

¶3 DCS initially removed the children from Parents’ care in late 

2016, but returned them in June 2019, after both parents completed

reunification services. In 2020, DCS involvement resumed. The children 

were again taken into DCS custody and adjudicated dependent. 

¶4 Father participated in reunification services, and the children 

were returned to his custody in 2022. Within a month of returning to 

Father’s custody, the juvenile court terminated Mother and Father’s 

parental rights to their second child, Logan, due to ongoing substance 

abuse. Neither parent contested this termination. 

¶5 A few months later, Mother and Claire engaged in a physical 

conflict and DCS received reports that Mother was abusing fentanyl. DCS 

inspected the home and discovered fentanyl pills and burnt foil under a 

sink. Following the home inspection, Father tested positive for fentanyl, 

and Mother did not participate in testing. 

¶6 DCS removed the children and took temporary legal custody, 

where the children have remained since. Parents’ oldest child, David, 

turned 18 in early 2023, resulting in his release from the dependency 

proceedings and DCS care. 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.P., et al.

Decision of the Court

3

¶7 In September 2023, DCS moved to terminate Parents’ rights to 

the three remaining dependent children. They did not contest the 

termination of their parental rights as to their third child, Claire. 

¶8 DCS offered Parents a variety of services including substance 

abuse treatment, behavioral-health support, and parenting education and 

skills services. Parents participated in supervised visitation and family 

connections (a behavioral-health service). But they did not participate in 

substance abuse treatment and missed multiple scheduled drug tests.

When they finally submitted to drug testing, both Mother and Father tested 

positive for fentanyl. 

¶9 At trial, Mother and Father complained that they should have 

been offered alternative services and be given “more time” to participate in 

services. Based on the positive drug tests, the numerous missed tests, and 

their refusal to acknowledge their drug use, the juvenile court found that 

neither parent had progressed towards sobriety in any meaningful way. 

The court explained that its primary concern was not “Mother and Father’s 

parenting skills or love for their children,” but was “their failure to 

demonstrate sobriety or to consistently participate in sobriety services.” 

The court concluded that Parents’ participation in some services, while 

laudable, could not excuse Mother’s or Father’s deficient participation in 

the other services aimed at addressing their substance abuse issues. The

court found that denying termination would delay permanency and 

stability and that continued contact with the parents while not sober could 

create additional trauma and attachment issues in the children. 

¶10 The juvenile court terminated Mother and Father’s parental 

rights, finding that DCS had proven grounds for termination under A.R.S. 

§§ 8-533(B)(3) (prolonged substance abuse), (B)(8) (nine month out-of-home 

placement), and (B)(11) (recurrent removal) and that termination was in the 

children’s best interests. 

¶11 Mother and Father separately filed timely notices of appeal 

from the termination order. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 8-235, 12-

120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶12 “The juvenile court may terminate a parent’s rights if it finds 

by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the statutory factors 

for termination exists and finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 

termination is in the child’s best interests.” Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 

255 Ariz. 471, 471, ¶ 1 (2023); A.R.S. § 8-533(B). Mother and Father do not 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.P., et al.

Decision of the Court

4

challenge the statutory grounds for termination, so we address only the 

court’s best interests finding. 

¶13 Mother and Father both argue that the court’s best interests 

finding was clearly erroneous. They insist the court did not give enough 

weight to the detrimental impact on the children, their efforts at 

reunification, and their interest in maintaining a positive parent-child 

relationship. Parents also point out that the children wanted to reunify with 

both parents. 

¶14 We view “the record in the light most favorable to upholding 

the court’s best-interests finding,” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 

146, 152, ¶ 21 (2018), and will “accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact if 

reasonable evidence and inferences support them,” Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn 

F., 239 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2016). We cannot reweigh the evidence on appeal and 

will affirm the court’s legal conclusions unless clearly erroneous. Brionna J., 

255 Ariz. at 478–79, ¶¶ 30–32.

¶15 “[A] determination of the child’s best interest[s] must include 

a finding as to how the child would benefit from [termination] or be harmed 

by the continuation of the relationship.” Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 5 (1990) (emphasis omitted). Courts “must consider the 

totality of the circumstances existing at the time of [termination], including 

the child’s adoptability and the parent’s rehabilitation.” Alma S., 245 Ariz. 

at 148, ¶ 1.

¶16 Here, the court expressly considered the totality of the 

circumstances and found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

termination of both Mother and Father’s parental rights was in the best 

interests of the children. The court found that the children are adoptable, 

bonded to the current placement, and are “enjoying a supportive and

consistent home in which all needs are met.” The court noted the current 

placement intends to proceed to adoption, which would allow the siblings 

to maintain their relationship. See id. at 146, 150–51, ¶¶ 13–14 (the court may 

find that a child would benefit from termination when a child is adoptable, 

or an adoption plan exists).

¶17 The court also found that denying termination would be 

detrimental to the children because it would “delay permanency and 

stability” and “could create further trauma and attachment issues in the 

Children.” See Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. S-2460, 162 Ariz. 156, 158 (App. 

1989) (The court may find that a child will be harmed by the continuation 
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.P., et al.

Decision of the Court

5

of the parent-child relationship when it is “shown to be detrimental to [the 

child’s] physical, mental and emotional well-being.”).

¶18 Considering the parent-child bond, the court acknowledged

that the children and the parents all love one another. But it found the bond

insufficient to offset its finding that the parents’ failure to address their 

long-standing substance abuse has rendered them unable to safely parent 

the children. See Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150, ¶ 12 (“The child’s interest in 

stability and security must be the court’s primary concern.” (cleaned up)).

¶19 Reasonable evidence supports the court’s findings, and we do 

not reweigh the evidence. The court did not err in finding termination was 

in the children’s best interests.

CONCLUSION

¶20 We affirm.