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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JEREMY E., Appellant, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, J.E., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0132 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300JD201700072 

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli Attorney at Law, Phoenix

By Robert D. Rosanelli

Counsel for Appellant 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Mesa

By Amanda Adams 

Counsel for Appellee 

FILED 8-28-2018
JEREMY E. v. DCS, J.E.

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:

¶1 Jeremy E. (father) appeals the juvenile courts order 

terminating his parental rights to J.E. (the child). Father argues that the 

juvenile court erred in finding that (1) he had neglected his child pursuant 

to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 8-533(B)(2) (2018); and (2) his 

length of incarceration would deprive the child of a normal home for a 

period of years pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4) (2018). For the following 

reasons we affirm the juvenile court’s order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The child came into care when the police were called after the 

child’s mother Kelli C., (mother) was seen driving erratically. The police 

arrived at the home where the car was registered and witnessed mother 

drive up and almost hit the child with the car. Upon searching the car 

police found methamphetamine, prescription pills, a spoon with pill 

residue, new and used syringes and a glass pipe with methamphetamine 

residue on it. Mother was arrested and charged with possession of 

dangerous drugs, passion of drug paraphernalia, DUI, and child 

endangerment. She ultimately was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison. The 

child was placed with his maternal grandmother, with whom he, his 

brother, T.M. 1, and mother had already lived, and DCS filed a dependency 

action. 

¶3 At the time the child was taken into custody, father was 

serving a five-year sentence for narcotic drug violations and promoting 

prison contraband for which he was sentenced on August 7, 2014. 

Although the record is not clear about father’s release date from prison, his 

earliest release date is in August 2018, and his maximum release date is in 

July 2019. 

 

1 T.M. is not subject to this appeal as father is not his biological or legal 

father.
JEREMY E. v. DCS, J.E.

Decision of the Court

3 

¶4 The Department of Child Safety (DCS) moved for termination 

of parental rights on December 20, 2017. The juvenile court held an 

evidentiary hearing on March 5, 2018, at which time father moved for a 

paper trial and the court granted the motion in lieu of live testimony. On 

April 2, 2018, the court granted DCS’s motion for termination finding that 

father had neglected the child, and that his length of incarceration would 

deprive the child of a normal home for a period of years. Father timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) (2018), 12-

120.21(A)(1) (2018), and 12-2101(B) (2018). 

DISCUSSION

¶5 A parent’s right to custody and control of his own child, while 

fundamental, is not absolute. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 

246, 248-49 ¶¶ 11-12 (2000). Severance of a parental relationship may be 

warranted where the state proves one of A.R.S. § 8-533’s statutory grounds 

for termination by “clear and convincing evidence.” Id.; A.R.S. § 8-863(B) 

(2018). “Clear and convincing” means the grounds for termination are 

“highly probable or reasonably certain.” Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 

284-85, ¶ 25 (2005). Additionally, the court must also determine what is in 

the best interest of the child by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 283, 

¶¶ 16, 22. 

¶6 “[W]e will accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact unless 

no reasonable evidence supports those findings, and we will affirm a 

severance order unless it is clearly erroneous.” Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. 

Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280 ¶ 4 (App. 2002). We do not reweigh the evidence, 

but “look only to determine if there is evidence to sustain the court’s

ruling.” Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 

2004). 

¶7 To terminate parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4), a 

court must find that “the sentence of [the] parent is of such length that the 

child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.” The time 

frame encompassed is the entire period of the parent’s incarceration and 

absence from the home, rather than the sentence which remained at the time 

of the severance proceedings. Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 206, ¶ 8. 

¶8 In determining if the sentence of an incarcerated parent is of 

such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of 

years, the court should consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:

(1) [T]he length and strength of any parent-child relationship 

existing when incarceration begins, (2) the degree to which 
JEREMY E. v. DCS, J.E.

Decision of the Court

4 

parent-child relationship can be continued and nurtured 

during the incarceration, (3) the age of the child and the 

relationship between the child’s age and likelihood that 

incarceration will deprive the child of a normal home, (4) the 

length of the sentence, (5) the availability of another parent to 

provide a normal home life, and (6) the effect of the 

deprivation of a parental presence on child at issue.

Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251-52, ¶ 29. 

¶9 Father argues that the child will not be deprived of a normal 

home because he will be released in August of 2018. However, the record 

does not reflect that the August release date is accurate or guaranteed. 

Additionally, the incarceration time the court is required to look at is the 

entire sentence, not just the remaining sentence. Father has been 

incarcerated since August 2014, and at the earliest will be released August 

2018. The child will be seven years old at that time. Thus, father will have 

been incarcerated for more than half of the child’s life which has deprived 

the child of a normal home. Additionally, the record reflects that the 

parental relation between father and child was minimal and father only 

began reaching out to the child after the dependency was initiated. Thus, 

the juvenile court did not err in terminating father’s parental rights. 

¶10 Because we affirm on the incarceration grounds, we need not 

consider whether the juvenile court’s findings justified severance based 

upon neglect pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-5363(B)(2). See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 

251, ¶ 27. Additionally, father did not argue that severance was not in the 

best interest of the child, and we therefore do not address the best interest 

finding. Id. at 249, ¶ 13. 
JEREMY E. v. DCS, J.E.

Decision of the Court

5 

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons we affirm the juvenile court’s 

decision.