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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 U.C. and A.C.

No. 1 CA-JV 23-0112 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300SV202200041

The Honorable Anna C. Young, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Anthem

By Florence M. Bruemmer

Counsel for Appellant Mother

Mull & Brown, PLLC, Prescott

By John G. Mull

Counsel for Appellee Father

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

FILED 10-31-2023
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO U.C. and A.C.

Decision of the Court

2

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Erin C. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her 

parental rights to U.C. and A.C. based on abandonment. Because Mother 

has shown no error, the order is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Ronin C. (Father) and Mother are the biological parents of 

U.C., born in 2008, and A.C., born in 2009. Parents were married but 

divorced in 2013. Over the years, Mother has had behavioral health issues 

that, at times, have been untreated. 

¶3 Mother was the children’s primary caregiver until 2014, when 

Child Protective Services placed the children in Father’s care to “protect the 

children from [M]other’s unpredictable and violent behavior.” As provided 

by the safety plan, Mother’s contact with the children was limited to phone 

calls initiated by Father. Father soon stopped making the phone calls, 

concluding they were “not productive.”

¶4 In 2016, after Mother made numerous unsubstantiated 

welfare check requests to law enforcement about the children, Father 

obtained a protective order against Mother, which included the children as 

protected parties. In September 2017, the order of protection against Mother 

expired. Following the order’s expiration, Mother did not seek to enforce 

her parenting time until June 2022. The record shows “Mother contacted 

the [c]hildren approximately five times between 2017 and 2022 via letter,” 

in addition to a few texts to Father. Mother has not seen the children since 

2014. 

¶5 In October 2022, Father filed a petition to terminate Mother’s 

parental rights, alleging abandonment. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 8-

533(B)(2) (2023).1 After an April 2023 adjudication, the court granted the 

petition, finding Father had proven abandonment and that termination was 

in the children’s best interests. This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s 

timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, 

A.R.S. § 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A) and 12-2101(A) and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 601-

03.

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited 

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO U.C. and A.C.

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶6 As applicable here, Father was required to prove 

abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and also prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that termination was in the best interests of 

the children. See Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288 ¶ 41 (2005); Michael 

J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249 ¶ 12 (2000). Because the 

superior court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the 

parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts,” this 

court will affirm an order terminating parental rights so long as it is 

supported by reasonable evidence. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 

Ariz. 86, 93 ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

I. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Abandonment.

¶7 Abandonment occurs when a parent fails to “provide 

reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with the child, 

including providing normal supervision.” A.R.S. § 8-531(1). Behavior 

reaching the level of “reasonable support,” “regular contact” and “normal 

supervision” varies according to differences in underlying circumstances. 

See, e.g., S.S. v. Stephanie H., 241 Ariz. 419, 425 ¶ 21 (App. 2017).

Nevertheless, a parent must act persistently to pursue the parent-child 

relationship despite obstacles that may arise. Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 250 ¶ 

22. Failure to maintain a normal parent-child relationship without just 

cause for six months is prima facie evidence of abandonment, creating a 

rebuttable presumption of abandonment. A.R.S. § 8-531(1).

¶8 Mother argues she has shown just cause for failing to 

maintain a parent-child relationship, pointing to the order of protection 

Father obtained against her and that she “had been criminally prosecuted 

for contacting Father in violation of the orders of protection.” But Mother 

was not arrested for violating the order of protection after 2017, when it

expired. Mother took no action to see the children after that time and

contacted them in writing an average of once a year from 2017 to 2022. 

Moreover, Mother candidly admits “she did not take action in the courts 

regarding her Children from 2017 to 2022.” Given these facts, Mother did 

not “vigorously assert [her] legal rights” to parent her children. See Michael 

J., 196 Ariz. at 250 ¶ 22.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO U.C. and A.C.

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Citing Calvin B. v Brittany B., 232 Ariz. 292 (App. 2013),

Mother argues that she “was unable to have contact with the Children due 

to the multiple court orders and Father’s intentional violation of the Court 

order for phone calls.” Mother further contends she cannot have abandoned 

her children when Father restricted her access to them. It appears that 

Father failed to facilitate phone calls between Mother and the children. 

Mother, however, did not seek to enforce her parental rights, nor did she 

contact the children (other than a few sporadic cards and texts) for five 

years after the protective order had expired. By contrast, the parent in Calvin 

“managed as many as ten visits with his son a year” despite the obstacles 

he faced, including orders of protection. See id. at 297-98 ¶¶ 25, 27.

¶10 Ultimately, the superior court found that “[t]he children have 

had no relationship with Mother since 2014 and are now teenagers. Mother 

has failed to provide reasonable support or maintain regular contact with 

the children, including providing normal supervision for a period of over 

eight years.” The record supports this finding, and Mother has shown no 

error in the abandonment finding. 

II. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Termination 

Was in the Children’s Best Interests.

¶11 “Termination is in the child’s best interest if either: (1) the 

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

severance is denied.” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 150 ¶ 13

(2018) (citation omitted). The court considers the totality of the 

circumstances when making this determination. Id. at 148 ¶ 1. 

¶12 Mother argues the court erred in finding best interests 

because Father “did not present any evidence that the Children had another 

mother-figure, that he was in a committed relationship with someone who 

wished to adopt the Children, or that there was any future plan for 

adoption.” While the potential for adoption may support a best interests

finding, it is not required. See, e.g., Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dept. of Econ. Sec., 

207 Ariz. 43, 50 ¶ 19 (App. 2004). The court may find, on the evidence 

presented, that best interests are shown when granting termination would 

benefit the children somehow, or that denying termination would harm the 

children. Id. (citation omitted). When assessing best interests, “[o]f foremost 

concern . . . is ‘protecting a child’s interest in stability and security.’” 

Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 4 ¶ 15 (2016) (citation omitted).
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO U.C. and A.C.

Decision of the Court

5

¶13 As applied, the trial evidence -- including testimony and a 

social study received in evidence -- supports the court’s finding that

termination would provide the children with needed stability. Though 

noting a recent brief period of stability, the social study reports that Mother 

has a history of “DCS and criminal issues that kept her from being a safe 

and stable parent for her children.” The court also found that, should 

termination be denied, the children would be harmed by the “uncertainty 

and fear associated with being exposed to Mother’s mental health issues 

and erratic behavior.” 

¶14 Reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding that 

termination was in the children’s best interests. Accordingly, Mother has 

not shown the court erred in its best interests finding. 

CONCLUSION

¶15 The order terminating Mother’s parental rights to U.C. and 

A.C. is affirmed.