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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SUSIE B., Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, L.T.,

N.T., Appellees.

No. 1 CA-JV 18-0024 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. JD 33345

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

DISMISSED

COUNSEL

John L. Popilek, PC, Scottsdale

By John L. Popilek

Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Sandra L. Nahigian

Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

FILED 6-14-2018
SUSIE B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge James P. Beene joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Susie B. (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s ruling 

terminating her relationship with her two children, N.T. and L.T. (together, 

the “Children”). She argues the superior court erred by concluding she 

failed to demonstrate good cause for her failure to appear at the termination

hearing. For the following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In October 2016, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) filed 

a dependency petition asserting that the Children were dependent as to 

Mother. DCS moved for termination in August 2017 under two statutory 

grounds: Mother’s inability to discharge her parental responsibilities 

because of a history of chronic substance abuse, Arizona Revised Statutes 

(“A.R.S.”) section 8-533(B)(3), and Mother’s neglect or willful refusal to 

remedy the circumstances that had caused the Children to be in an out-ofhome placement for nine months or longer, A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(a).

¶3 Mother did not appear at the contested termination hearing 

on December 13, 2017. The court found that Mother failed to appear without 

good cause and allowed DCS to proceed in her absence. The court 

terminated Mother’s parental rights and ordered DCS to lodge findings of 

fact and conclusions of law within 10 days which the court would then sign 

as its final order. 

¶4 On December 21, 2017, Mother filed a motion for a good-cause 

finding for her failure to appear and to set aside the termination ruling. On 

January 9, 2018, the superior court signed the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law submitted by DCS without having ruled on Mother’s 

motion, and on January 23, Mother filed a notice of appeal from that order. 

On January 29, the superior court filed an order denying Mother’s motion 

for a good-cause finding for her failure to appear and to set aside the 

termination ruling.
SUSIE B. v. DCS, et al.

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 “This court has the duty to review its jurisdiction and, if 

jurisdiction is lacking, to dismiss the appeal.” Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp., 

168 Ariz. 301, 304 (App. 1991). While we have jurisdiction to review 

Mother’s appeal from the court’s order terminating her parental rights 

under A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-2101(A), and 12-120.21(A), Mother specifies 

the January 9 order terminating her parental rights in her notice of appeal. 

The only arguments Mother raises in her opening brief concern the court’s 

order denying her motion to find good cause for her failure to appear. 

¶6 Under Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 

104(B), “[t]he notice of appeal . . . shall . . . designate the final order or part 

thereof appealed from.” Absent “a timely notice of appeal following entry 

of the order sought to be appealed, we are without jurisdiction to determine 

the propriety of the order sought to be appealed.” Lee v. Lee, 133 Ariz. 118, 

124 (App. 1982); see also China Doll Restaurant, Inc. v. Schweiger, 119 Ariz. 

315, 316 (App. 1978) (court of appeals has no jurisdiction to consider an 

issue not contained in the notice of appeal).

¶7 Here, Mother contests neither the statutory grounds upon 

which the court terminated her parental rights, nor its finding that 

termination would be in the Children’s best interests—i.e., the issues 

contained in the January 9 order from which she specifically filed her notice 

of appeal with this court. Rather, Mother only argues she had good cause 

for her failure to appear at the hearing, an issue the court only addressed in 

its January 29 order denying her motion and from which Mother did not 

file an appeal. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to consider Mother’s 

appeal.

CONCLUSION

¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss Mother’s appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction.