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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BRADLEY H., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, L.H., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 19-0378

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JS20034/JD35606

The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Jamie R. Heller

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Sandra L. Nahigian

Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

FILED 6-9-2020
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop and Judge David B. Gass joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Bradley H. (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order 

terminating his parental rights to his minor daughter, L.H. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEURAL HISTORY

¶2 On December 21, 2015, L.H. was born to Father and Lavona 

H. (“Mother”). Mother also has two minor daughters, Jayla and Jazmin,

from a previous relationship.

1 Mother and Father married, and Father 

became Jayla’s and Jazmin’s stepfather.

¶3 In July 2017, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) and 

Phoenix Police Department received a report alleging that Father had 

sexually abused Jayla and Jazmin, then ages ten and twelve, respectively. 

Officers interviewed both children. Jazmin told police that Father talked 

her into pulling his pants down to observe his penis despite her objection. 

Further, Jazmin said when Mother was not home, Father made them all get 

unclothed and talk about their genitalia while he stared at them. Jazmin 

also said that Father wanted them to be a “naked family.” There were no 

allegations of inappropriate touching, and at the time Jayla did not disclose 

any relevant information to the investigation.

¶4 Father denied Jazmin’s allegations, and Mother was unaware 

of any such incidents but believed that something inappropriate had 

occurred. Father said he did not want Jazmin and Jayla to grow up naïve, 

and recounted numerous instances where he educated them on rape, sexual 

abuse, and sex. For example, Father said he told Jazmin that if he touched 

her in the breasts that would be sexual abuse. On another occasion, Father 

1 For ease of reference, we use pseudonyms to identify Mother’s two 

minor children, pursuant to Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile 

Court (“Rule”) 106(H). Mother, Jayla, and Jazmin are not parties to this 

appeal.
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

3

explained to them that his penis changed sizes and the reasons for it. The 

police eventually closed the investigation because there was no 

corroborating evidence to support Jazmin’s disclosure.

¶5 Although Jayla did not disclose any pertinent information to 

the police, she relayed to the DCS case manager similar details as those 

disclosed by Jazmin. Jayla recalled an instance where Father showed her 

what a hard and soft penis looked like and that “no liquids came out of it.” 

Jayla confirmed that Father said he wanted to be a “naked family.” She also 

said that he told her and Jazmin to walk around the house unclothed after 

their showers.

¶6 DCS then implemented a safety plan, which was agreed upon 

by Father. The safety plan required the children to reside with Mother and 

required Father to reside outside of the home. Father was also required to 

enroll in counseling, to have only supervised visits with L.H., and to have 

no contact with Jazmin and Jayla.

¶7 During a home visit in September 2017, Jazmin and Jayla 

revealed more information to DCS. Jayla said that Father touched around 

her breasts but did not touch her nipple directly. She also said Father told 

her to keep everything a secret. Jazmin recalled Father saying, “I see you 

looking at my dick. Do you want to touch it? It’s ok if you do, you can 

touch it.” Jazmin refused to do so. Jazmin also told DCS that Father said, 

“[A]re your boobs getting bigger . . . pull up your shirt and let me see.”

Jazmin pulled up her shirt and Father pointed around Jazmin’s breasts to 

show her they were growing. At a later home visit, DCS informed Mother 

about what the children said, including that Father wanted them to be a 

“naked family.” Mother said, “[H]e had talked to me about that previously 

and I had told him we weren’t going to do that.”

¶8 Based on the new information, DCS contacted the Phoenix 

Police Department to complete additional interviews. Jayla again 

recounted that Father touched around her breasts and added that he did

the same to her vagina. Jayla said this occurred more than once and that it 

made her feel uncomfortable. During this interview, Jazmin declined to 

talk.
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 DCS filed a dependency petition in March 2018, citing 

Father’s sexual abuse, including grooming2 behaviors, his failure to 

participate in services required by the safety plan, his continued contact 

with Jayla and Jazmin, and unsupervised contact with L.H. During the

contested dependency, DCS learned of an earlier report regarding Father’s 

sister. In that 2004 case, Father admitted that when his sister was about two 

years old and he was about nine, he made her get unclothed and he 

masturbated in front of her. He also said he was uncertain whether he 

touched her. This conduct occurred over several years until his sister was 

about seven years old and he was in his teens. Father’s sister reported that 

he made her touch his penis, performed oral sex on her, and touched her 

vagina.

¶10 As a result of Jayla’s and Jazmin’s statements, and the 

information regarding his sister’s molestation allegations, DCS offered 

Father multiple services, including counseling, a psychosexual evaluation 

to determine if sexual-offender treatment was needed, supervised visits, 

and parent aides. Father’s lawyer canceled Father’s counseling intake and 

said Father was declining services. Father also did not attend his 

psychosexual evaluation or parenting classes.

¶11 In July 2018, L.H. was found dependent as to Father, and all 

the children were eventually placed into foster homes. The court ordered a 

case plan of family reunification concurrent with adoption as to L.H. and 

Father.

¶12 DCS again offered reunification services to Father, including 

counseling, a psychological evaluation, parent aides, and supervised visits. 

The court also ordered that Father participate in a psychosexual evaluation, 

which DCS scheduled for Father. Father consistently participated in 

supervised visits with L.H. and successfully completed his parent-aide 

services. However, Father did not attend the court-ordered psychosexual 

evaluation. DCS re-referred Father, but Father informed the provider that 

he would not complete the evaluation. Father also again declined to 

participate in counseling.

¶13 In April 2019, DCS filed a motion to terminate Father’s 

parental rights to L.H. on the grounds of abuse, neglect, and nine months’

in out-of-home placement. A three-day trial was held in October 2019, and 

2 Grooming is the “process of cultivating trust with a victim and 

gradually introducing sexual behaviors until reaching the point of 

intercourse.” United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279, 1283 n.2 (9th Cir. 1997).
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

5

the court terminated Father’s parental relationship to L.H. Specifically, the 

court found Father’s sexual abuse of Jazmin, Jayla, and his sister placed L.H. 

at risk of similar harm. The court also found Father willfully refused to 

remedy the circumstances causing L.H. to be in an out-of-home placement 

for more than nine months. The court then found that termination was in 

L.H.’s best interests. Father timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 8-235(A) and 12-

120.21(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶14 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, 

custody, and management of their children,” but “parental rights are not 

absolute.” Kent. K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284, ¶ 24 (2005). To terminate 

parental rights, the superior court must find by clear and convincing 

evidence one of the statutory grounds set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533(B), and by 

a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child’s best 

interests. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 149-50, ¶ 8 (2018).

¶15 Father challenges both the court’s findings that a statutory 

ground existed, and that termination was in L.H.’s best interests. “Because 

the juvenile court is in the best position to weigh evidence and assess 

witness credibility, we accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact if 

reasonable evidence and inferences support them, and will affirm a 

severance order unless it is clearly erroneous.” Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 

239 Ariz. 1, 3, ¶ 9 (2016). Accordingly, “[w]e view the facts in a light most 

favorable to affirming the trial court’s findings.” Maricopa Cty. Juv. Action 

No. JS-8490, 179 Ariz. 102, 106 (1994).

I. Statutory Ground for Termination

¶16 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2), the superior court may 

terminate a parent-child relationship under the following circumstances:

[T]he parent has neglected or willfully abused a child. This 

abuse includes serious physical or emotional injury or 

situations in which the parent knew or reasonably should 

have known that a person was abusing or neglecting a child.

¶17 Section 8-201(2)(a) further defines abuse as including sexual 

abuse pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1404. “A person commits sexual abuse by 

intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact . . . with any person 

who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the 

female breast.” A.R.S. § 13-1404(A).
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

6

¶18 Father first argues there was no evidence that he abused L.H. 

And even if the finding of sexual abuse against Jayla and Jazmin is upheld, 

he argues his abuse does not put L.H. at risk of harm. The superior court 

may “terminate parental rights to children who exhibit no evidence of 

neglect or abuse, under § 8-533(B)(2), [if it finds] during the parental 

unfitness inquiry, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is a risk of 

harm to those children.” Sandra R. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 224, 228, 

¶ 17 (2020). Here, the superior court found by clear and convincing 

evidence that L.H. was at risk of harm. The allegations of sexual abuse 

perpetrated upon Jazmin, Jayla, and Father’s sister, together with Father’s 

refusal to engage in a psychosexual evaluation, and any recommended 

treatment, support the superior court’s finding of risk of harm to L.H.

¶19 Father also argues the evidence did not support a finding that 

he abused Jazmin and Jayla because the only evidence presented was their 

statements of abuse, which were inconsistent, and therefore lacked 

sufficient indicia of reliability. Father also argues their statements are not 

reliable because he denied all allegations of abuse. Father cites Rule 45(E), 

which says statements that lack sufficient indicia of reliability are 

inadmissible. However, Father never objected to the admission of the 

statements at the termination hearing. In fact, Father explicitly said he 

wasn’t arguing against the admissibility of their statements based on Rule 

45. We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See 

Kimu P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 39, 44, ¶ 19 n.3 (App. 2008). In

any event, Father’s argument essentially asks us to reweigh the credibility 

of Jazmin, Jayla, and Father. See Ariz. R. Evid. 806 (inconsistent statements 

admissible to attack hearsay declarant’s credibility). We decline the 

invitation to do so because the superior court is in the best position to assess 

credibility.3 See Demetrius L., 239 Ariz. at 3, ¶ 9.

3 The parties agree the court erred in finding Jazmin and Jayla fondled 

Father’s penis. After a review of the entire record, we conclude that 

although Father did encourage Jazmin to fondle his penis, nothing in the 

record supports a finding that she did in fact do so. Accordingly, the court 

erred in making such a finding. The court also erred in finding that Father 

touched both Jazmin’s and Jayla’s breasts. The evidence supports that he 

touched around Jayla’s breasts. We note that Father does not challenge that 

his conduct constitutes sexual abuse, but rather asserts his argument

outlined in this paragraph, namely that Jayla’s and Jazmin’s statements 
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

7

¶20 Because sufficient evidence supports the court’s finding 

concerning A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2), we need not address the nine months’ in

out-of-home placement ground. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 

Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002). Nevertheless, there is sufficient evidence 

that Father willfully refused to remedy the circumstances that caused L.H. 

to be out of the home for nine months. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a). Although 

Father participated in parent-aide services and supervised visits, Father 

consistently refused to participate in counseling and a court-ordered 

psychosexual evaluation. Both the counseling and psychosexual evaluation 

were directly related to remedying his sexual behavior toward children, 

which is what caused L.H. to be out of the home. Accordingly, the court 

did not err in terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-

533(B)(8)(a).

II. Best-Interests Determination

¶21 The court must also find the termination of the parent-child 

relationship is in the child’s best interests. A.R.S. § 8-533(B). “The ‘child’s 

interest in stability and security’ must be the court’s primary concern.” 

Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150, ¶ 12 (quoting Demetrius L., 239 Ariz. at 4, ¶ 15). 

“[T]ermination is in the child’s best interests if either: (1) the child will 

benefit from severance; or (2) the child will be harmed if severance is 

denied.” Id. at ¶ 13.

¶22 Father argues L.H. and he have a bond. He also asserts there 

is no evidence that L.H. will be harmed if termination is denied because 

Father acted appropriately during supervised visits, which is all an 

unrelated family court custody order currently allows. First, the superior 

court considered the bond between Father and. L.H., but such a bond is not 

dispositive. Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96, 98, ¶ 12 (App. 

2016). In fact, the court found the bond did not outweigh the potential risk 

of harm to L.H. The evidence presented shows Father tends to sexually 

abuse young girls near L.H.’s age. Father’s refusal to engage in services to 

address his tendencies causes him to remain a risk to L.H. Additionally, 

the fact that Father acted appropriately while parent aides were present and 

monitoring his visits has little value given that evidence provided to the 

court showed parents who sexually abuse their children generally do not 

do so in front of other people. Finally, a family court order restricting 

were unreliable, and therefore insufficient evidence existed to terminate his 

parental rights.
BRADLEY H. v. DCS, L.H.

Decision of the Court

8

Father to supervised visits is subject to future modification, which could 

put L.H. at risk of sexual abuse. Because reasonable evidence supports the 

finding that severance is in L.H.’s best interests, the superior court did not 

err in terminating the parental relationship.

CONCLUSION

¶23 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

order terminating Father’s parental rights to L.H.