Court Opinion

ID: 9951903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 15:02:53.33148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:23.175427
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0190
                                FILED 3-19-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JS21641
                  The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

                                    AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant, Anthony V.

Goldman Law LLC, Phoenix
By Lundyn J. Garrett
Counsel for Appellee, Kimberly T.
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.V.
                        Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1             Father appeals from the order terminating his parental rights
to his daughter, Hannah.1 The court found Father abandoned Hannah and
that termination was in her best interests. See A.R.S. §§ 8-531(1), -533(B)(1).
Father concedes the finding of abandonment but challenges the best-
interests finding. Because sufficient trial evidence supports the best-
interests finding, we affirm.

                              BACKGROUND

¶2             Mother and Father were romantically involved at the time
Hannah was born in June of 2018. Hannah was Mother’s first child; Father
had two other children (a son and a daughter) with other women. Mother
testified that while they were together, Father was selling and taking drugs
illegally. She further testified that because he was under the influence,
Mother took over responsibility for Father’s other daughter during his
visitation. Mother described her relationship with Father as unpredictable
and emotionally, verbally, and financially abusive. When Hannah was a
year and a half old, Mother and Father separated.

¶3             Mother and Hannah have lived with Hannah’s maternal
grandfather since Hannah was born. Father has always known Mother’s
home address, email address, and work phone number. Each year, Father
has left Mother a voicemail on Hannah’s birthday, but he has not asked
about Hannah or attempted to visit her. In 2020 and 2021, Father sent
Mother flowers on Mother’s birthday. In December 2020, Father texted
Mother wishing them a Merry Christmas and telling her that he missed
them. Other than the text messages and voicemails, Father has not spoken
to Mother. He has not seen Hannah or Mother since November 2019. Father
has not provided any financial support, nor provided any cards, gifts,
letters, or necessities for Hannah after he and Mother split.

1      We use a pseudonym to protect the identity of the child.

                                      2
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.V.
                        Decision of the Court

¶4            In March 2023, Mother enrolled Hannah in kindergarten. She
asked the school secretary how she could ensure Father would not be
allowed to pick Hannah up from school. The secretary told her she could
not prevent him from picking Hannah up without “court paperwork” since
Father is on the birth certificate.

¶5           In June 2023, Hannah was evaluated for an Individual
Education Plan. Based on this evaluation, occupational therapy and
developmental delay services were put in place. The evaluator also noted
Hannah was at-risk for anxiety disorder. Following the evaluation, Hannah
began receiving special education services.

¶6             Mother filed a petition to sever Father’s parental rights in June
2023 based on abandonment and alleged that termination was in Hannah’s
best interests. The court then ordered Mother to complete a social study.
Father was scheduled to have a home visit as part of that study, but he said
he had “other things to do.” The evaluator was unable to conduct an
interview with Father because he stopped communicating with her. At the
conclusion of the social study, the evaluator recommended termination of
Father’s rights.

¶7            The court granted Mother’s petition in October 2023, finding
Mother had proven abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and
that termination was in Hannah’s best interests by a preponderance of the
evidence. Father timely appealed.

                               DISCUSSION

¶8            A parent’s right to custody and control of his or her own child,
while fundamental, is not absolute. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196
Ariz. 246, 248–49, ¶¶ 11–12 (2000). The juvenile court may terminate the
parental relationship where (1) clear and convincing evidence shows the
existence of a statutory termination ground under A.R.S. § 8-533, and (2) a
preponderance of the evidence shows that termination is in the child’s best
interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 281–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).

¶9            We accept the juvenile court’s factual findings so long as they
are supported by reasonable evidence and inferences, and we affirm the
court’s legal conclusions unless they are clearly erroneous. Brionna J. v.
Dep’t of Child Safety, 533 P.3d 202, 209–10, ¶¶ 30–31 (2023). We do not
reweigh the evidence. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43,
47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004). We review questions of statutory interpretation and
application de novo, looking first to plain and unambiguous statutory
language. Id. at ¶ 9.

                                       3
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.V.
                        Decision of the Court

¶10           Father does not dispute the court’s abandonment finding.
Instead, he argues the court abused its discretion by finding termination to
be in Hannah’s best interests because there was insufficient evidence to
support that finding.

¶11          To terminate a parental relationship, the court must find that
termination is in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the
evidence. Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 288, ¶ 41. Proof by a preponderance of the
evidence occurs if the fact is more probable than not. Id. at 284, ¶ 25.

¶12            The best interests of the child are analyzed under the totality
of the circumstances, but the child’s “interest in stability and security” is
the primary concern. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 148, 150,
¶¶ 1, 12 (2018). Termination is in the child’s best interests if it will benefit
the child, or if failure to terminate will harm the child. Id. at 150, ¶ 13. A
court does not assume that an abandoned child will benefit from
termination. Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 4, ¶ 14 (2016). However,
the effect of a years-long lack of contact between a child and a parent may
be considered. Id. at 5, ¶ 20. An abandoned child’s inability to identify his
or her father is also relevant, as “forcing contact between them could
traumatize the [child].” Steven M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 254 Ariz. 426, 431,
¶ 16 (App. 2023).

¶13           Here, Father has not seen Hannah since she was
approximately 17 months old. At the time of the severance hearing, she was
five years old. Hannah could not identify who her father was during the
social study. When asked about her “dad,” she referred to her maternal
grandfather, who lives in the family home.

¶14            The social study evaluator testified that having Father, a
stranger, come into Hannah’s life unexpectedly could be detrimental to her
well-being, especially given her special needs. She is in a home with both a
maternal figure, Mother, and a paternal figure, her grandfather, who both
provide for her emotional, physical, and financial needs. This evidence
suggests that termination of Father’s parental rights would result in greater
stability for Hannah.

¶15           Father argues Mother’s lack of adoption plans contradicts the
court’s best-interests finding. We disagree. The anticipated adoption of a
child is but one factor for the court to consider when determining whether
termination is in a child’s best interests. Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.,
194 Ariz. 376, 377, ¶ 5 (App. 1998). “Another is whether an existing
placement is meeting the needs of the child.” Id. The record contains ample

                                        4
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.V.
                        Decision of the Court

evidence that Hannah’s current living situation with Mother and her
maternal grandfather is meeting her needs. Mother’s family has supported
Mother and Hannah since Mother’s pregnancy. Hannah is “very attached
and bonded” to Mother and her maternal grandfather, and the social study
evaluator concluded “there is no shortage of safe and appropriate
caretakers for [Hannah], including her maternal grandfather . . ., maternal
grandmother, and the maternal aunt and uncle.” Hannah is well cared for,
and all her needs are being met by Mother and her extended family.
Allowing Father to interrupt this family structure would disrupt Hannah’s
interest in stability and security. See Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150, ¶ 12.

¶16          Conversely, Father has failed to develop any relationship
with Hannah. In the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, the court may
consider the parent’s “rehabilitation efforts.” Id. at 151, ¶ 15. After his
relationship with Mother ended, Father failed to meaningfully pursue a
relationship with his daughter: he never attempted to arrange visitation,
establish custody, or provide for Hannah financially. When given the
opportunity to participate in the social study in this case, Father failed to
attend the home evaluation or the interview. As noted by the by the court,
Father has “no desire or intent to provide for the child’s medical, social,
physical or emotional needs” and “fail[ed] to provide care when given an
opportunity.”

¶17            Moreover, to the extent relevant in an abandonment case, the
record shows that Father abused the chances he had to parent Hannah. The
court found that during his relationship with Mother (when he had access
to Hannah), Father was emotionally, financially, and verbally abusive. To
subject Hannah to a stranger who cannot be trusted with her safety would
affirmatively harm her, especially given her happy and healthy living
situation. See Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150, ¶ 13. When viewing Father’s lack of
parenting efforts and drug use alongside Hannah’s special needs and lack
of any relationship with Father, reasonable evidence supports the court’s
finding that termination is in Hannah’s best interests.

                                     5
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO H.V.
                        Decision of the Court

                              CONCLUSION

¶18          We affirm.2

                           AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                           FILED: AA

2 Although requesting attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal, Mother cites
ARCAP 21 (which is not authority to award fees in this context, see Ariz.
R.P. Juv. Ct. 103(d)) and cites no substantive authority that would authorize
a fee award. Accordingly, her request is denied.

                                        6