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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DAPHNE N., Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL B., A.B., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0094 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JS518391

The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, PC, Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

Law Office of Judith E. Abramsohn, Phoenix

By Judith Elaine Abramsohn

Counsel for Appellee Michael B.

FILED 8-28-2018
DAPHNE N. v. MICHAEL B., A.B.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

C A T T A N I, Judge:

¶1 Daphne N. (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s 

order in this private severance action terminating her parental rights to her 

child A.B. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Michael B. (“Father”) are the parents of A.B., born

in May 2012. In 2017, Father filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental 

rights to A.B. alleging abandonment. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 8-

533(B)(1).

¶3 At the resulting severance trial, Father testified that he and 

Mother had dated briefly before Mother was arrested and sentenced to two 

years in prison for a probation violation and a drug offense. About two 

weeks after her arrest, Mother told Father she was pregnant. Before A.B.’s 

birth, Father filed a petition in family court to establish paternity and for 

child custody, and the court granted him temporary custody while Mother 

remained incarcerated. Father took custody of A.B. just days after his birth, 

and A.B. has lived with him ever since.

¶4 Father took A.B. to visit Mother in prison twice before her 

release in late 2012, and she then visited A.B. three times before a February 

2013 family court hearing. At that hearing, the family court entered orders 

(in accordance with an agreement reached by Mother and Father) 

establishing paternity, granting Father sole legal decision-making, 

designating Father primary residential parent, and allowing Mother one 

day (7 hours) of scheduled parenting time each week and daily voice or 

video calls with A.B.

¶5 Despite the parenting time order, Mother visited A.B. only 

approximately 10 times (one or two hours each time) in the more than four 

years that followed, and she did not call him. Mother gave A.B. only a few 

gifts, and she never provided any financial support for him. Mother last 
DAPHNE N. v. MICHAEL B., A.B.

Decision of the Court

3

saw A.B. in May 2016. Father denied preventing contact between Mother 

and A.B., testifying instead that she simply stopped calling.

¶6 In contrast, Mother testified that she visited A.B. weekly 

through the end of 2013, but that Father thereafter began restricting her 

access to one visit every one or two months and had denied contact on 

multiple occasions. Mother acknowledged, however, that she stopped 

visiting A.B. from October 2015 through mid-2016 because of an ongoing 

dependency proceeding brought by the Department of Child Safety 

(“DCS”) as to her younger daughter, D.F. Mother also confirmed that she 

had never provided monetary support for A.B.

¶7 Mother acknowledged a years-long struggle with drug 

addiction. She described in particular on-and-off methamphetamine use 

for 11 years. Mother testified that in the past she had been able to stay clean 

for substantial periods of time, but had nevertheless relapsed. Her 

addiction contributed to DCS’s involvement with D.F., who was 

hospitalized after ingesting methamphetamine when less than one year old. 

Although Mother initially claimed to have been clean for six years at the 

time of D.F.’s drug exposure, she tested positive for amphetamines and 

methamphetamine at that time. She tested negative for drugs for the next 

several months, and D.F.’s dependency was dismissed in mid-2016.

¶8 Mother testified that she last used methamphetamine in July 

2017, four months after Father filed the severance petition. She was again 

arrested in September 2017 after police found stolen property and credit 

cards in her residence, along with a firearm within D.F.’s reach. This arrest 

led DCS to file a new dependency regarding D.F.

¶9 While on pretrial release for the resulting charges, Mother 

voluntarily entered a residential drug treatment program, where—in her 

view—she made substantial progress. But Mother subsequently pleaded 

guilty to credit card theft and was sentenced to a stipulated one-year prison 

term. Nevertheless, Mother testified that she planned to return to the 

residential drug treatment program, and in fact anticipated being hired as 

a staff member, after completing her prison term.

¶10 The superior court terminated Mother’s parental rights to 

A.B., finding grounds for severance based on abandonment and that 

severance would be in A.B.’s best interests. Mother timely appealed, and 

we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-235(A).
DAPHNE N. v. MICHAEL B., A.B.

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

¶11 The superior court may terminate the parent–child 

relationship if clear and convincing evidence establishes at least one 

statutory ground for severance, and a preponderance of the evidence shows 

severance to be in the child’s best interest. A.R.S. § 8-533; Kent K. v. Bobby 

M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 22 (2005). We review the superior court’s severance 

ruling for an abuse of discretion, deferring to the court’s credibility 

determinations and factual findings. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 

207 Ariz. 43, 47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 

278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002).

¶12 Mother challenges only the superior court’s best interests 

finding; she does not dispute the finding of abandonment. Termination is 

in a child’s best interests if the child would be harmed by the continuation 

of the parent–child relationship or would benefit from severance. Mary Lou 

C., 207 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 19.

¶13 Mother urges that absent a prospective adoptive mother, 

severance would not benefit A.B. because he would be left with a “maternal 

void” instead of the stability of a continued relationship with her. 

Availability of a likely adoptive parent is one potential benefit relevant to a 

best interests assessment, and absent other considerations, improbability of 

adoption weighs against severance. See Titus S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 

Ariz. 365, 370–71, ¶¶ 19–22 (App. 2018); see also Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action No. 

JS-500274, 167 Ariz. 1, 6 (1990) (noting the “unspoken assumption that a 

parent, even an inadequate one, is better than no parent at all unless the 

child can somehow benefit from losing his natural parent”). But here, 

Father has provided a safe and stable home for A.B. since birth, and 

although there is no dispute that Mother loves A.B., her absence from his

life does not reflect the stable relationship she claims, but rather has itself 

created a “maternal void.” 

¶14 Moreover, the record supports the superior court’s conclusion 

that maintaining the parent–child relationship risked harm to A.B. Despite 

Mother’s plan to successfully overcome her years-long methamphetamine 

addiction and her progress toward achieving that goal, the record supports 

the superior court’s conclusion that Mother’s history of relapse into drug 

abuse and her history of criminal activity put a child in her care at risk. 

Mother has not shown that the superior court abused its discretion by 

concluding that under the circumstances presented—including Mother’s 

lengthy absence, her repeated criminal activity, and her history and future 
DAPHNE N. v. MICHAEL B., A.B.

Decision of the Court

5

risk of methamphetamine dependence—severance was in A.B.’s best 

interests.

¶15 Accordingly, the record supports the superior court’s best 

interests determination, and we affirm the ruling terminating Mother’s 

parental rights to A.B.

CONCLUSION

¶16 The severance ruling is affirmed.