Court Opinion

ID: 9930301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 17:02:26.150494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:12:55.894321
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 C.C.

                             No. 1 CA-JV 23-0082
                               FILED 2-6-2024

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
                        No. S8015JD202200071
               The Honorable Rick A. Williams, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

The Law Offices of Michael and Casey, Phoenix
By Robert Ian Casey
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Casey Ball
Counsel for Appellee
             IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
                         Decision of the Court

                        MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

G A S S, Chief Judge:

¶1            Father appeals the superior court’s order terminating his
parental rights to the child based on the abandonment ground of A.R.S.
§ 8-533.B.1. We affirm. 1

                FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            This court views the evidence, and draws reasonable
inferences from it, in the light most favorable to affirming the superior
court’s ruling. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282 ¶ 13
(App. 2002).

¶3            Father and mother lived together when mother discovered
she was pregnant. When mother told father she was pregnant, they argued,
and the argument led to mother’s domestic violence arrest. At that point,
father said he did not want to be involved with the child and made mother
move out.

¶4             About three weeks before mother gave birth, she drank
alcohol to the point of needing to be hospitalized. Mother gave birth while
living in a sober living home to cope with her mental health and substance

1 The Department of Child Services (“DCS”) asked this court to stay the

appeal until the superior court could determine whether this case was
impacted by a processing error in the DCS Guardian System. After
receiving a status report from DCS, we lifted the stay. While this appeal was
stayed, the superior court re-appointed counsel for father. The Department
of Child Safety disclosed visitation notes and other records to father’s
counsel. Father and counsel discussed the disclosure issue and stipulated it
“would [not have] substantially affected the outcome of the severance
adjudication.” The superior court accepted the stipulation. The superior
court did not re-appoint counsel for mother, but she did not appeal so no
issues concerning mother are before us.

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

abuse issues. Mother struggled to care for the child and relied heavily on
the staff at the sober living home for help.

¶5             Several weeks after mother gave birth, DCS filed a
dependency petition. In its petition, DCS alleged mother had difficulty
meeting the child’s needs, struggled with mental health, and had a history
of substance abuse, all of which undermined mother’s ability to provide the
child with adequate care. The superior court adopted a case plan of family
reunification.

¶6            DCS could not locate father until about four months into the
dependency. Once DCS served father with the dependency petition, father
promptly completed a negative drug test, but he delayed enrolling in
services and completing a paternity test. Father delayed taking the
paternity test and did not visit the child during this time. Five months into
the dependency, DCS asked the superior court to change the case plan to
termination and adoption. DCS moved to terminate father’s parental rights
based on abandonment.

¶7           About a month after DSC moved to terminate father’s rights,
father completed the paternity test and learned he was the child’s genetic
parent. Only then, father began visiting the child twice a week. He
continued those twice-weekly visits for about two months until the superior
court terminated his parental rights.

¶8            When the child was around ten months old, the superior court
held a contested termination adjudication. At the end of the adjudication,
the superior court found father had abandoned the child and terminated
his parental rights. The superior court noted father’s early negative drug
test and later visitation progress, but it also noted father’s delay enrolling
in services and getting a paternity test even though he knew the delay put
his parental rights at further risk. The superior court determined father’s
visitation progress, though positive, did not rise to the level of a normal
parental relationship. The superior court also found termination was in the
child’s best interests because the child was adoptable and because
termination would give the child finality and permanency.

¶9            After the adjudication, the superior court entered a written
order terminating father’s parental rights. The order said father
“abandoned the child and failed to maintain a normal parental relationship
with the child without just cause by failing to provide reasonable support,
failing to maintain regular contact, and/or failing to provide normal
supervision.” The order continued: father “has been minimally active in the

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

case, taking several months to establish paternity and begin visitation. He
has not maintained or established a normal parent-child relationship.”

¶10            This court has jurisdiction over father’s timely appeal under
article VI, section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 8-235.A, 12-
120.21.A, and -2101.A.1.

                                DISCUSSION

¶11            Father asks this court to reverse the superior court order
terminating his parental rights, arguing the superior court made
insufficient factual findings to support its conclusions in the termination
order. DCS argues father waived the issue because he failed to raise his
claim of insufficient factual findings before the superior court.

I.     Though father waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the
       superior court’s factual findings, we exercise our discretion and
       reach the merits.

¶12            DCS argues father should have raised his claim of insufficient
factual findings in a post-judgment motion to alter or amend a final order.
Generally, failure to raise an argument in the superior court waives the
issue on appeal. Marianne N. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 243 Ariz. 53, 56 ¶ 13
(2017). But this court may exercise its discretion to disregard waiver. See id.

¶13            Even assuming father waived his claim, when “good reason
exists” this court may consider the merits of a waived argument. City of
Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 209 Ariz. 544, 552 ¶ 33 n.9 (2005)
(citation omitted). Here, good cause exists to reach the merits because this
case involves termination of father’s parental rights and affects his
fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of his
child. See Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532, 538 ¶ 16 (App. 2018).
Because father challenges the adequacy of a termination order, this case
implicates his procedural due process rights. See id. (noting the legislature
requires factual findings in termination orders to ensure compliance with
procedural safeguards because parents’ fundamental interest in the care,
custody, and control of their children is at stake).

¶14          Though father waived his claim we exercise our discretion to
address its merits because this case involves father’s fundamental right to
parent.

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

II.    The superior court’s factual findings are sufficient to support its
       termination order.

¶15           This court reviews the superior court’s decision on a petition
to terminate a parent’s rights for an abuse of discretion. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47 ¶ 8 (App. 2004). 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 if reasonable evidence
supports the order. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93 ¶ 18
(App. 2009) (citations omitted). This court does not reweigh the evidence
but “look[s] only to determine if there is evidence to sustain the [superior]
court’s ruling.” Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 47 ¶ 8.

¶16            Because termination cases involve a fundamental right, the
legislature imposed procedural safeguards to ensure due process. Logan B.,
244 Ariz. at 538 ¶ 16 (citation omitted). Under A.R.S. § 8-538.A, orders
terminating a parental relationship must “be in writing and . . . recite the
findings on which the order is based.” This court has interpreted subsection
8-538.A to require the superior court to make “at least one factual finding to
support each . . . conclusion[] of law,” including all “the ‘ultimate’ facts—
that is, those necessary to resolve the disputed issues.” Ruben M. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236, 240–41 ¶¶ 22, 25 (App. 2012) (emphasis
added) (citation omitted). But even if a superior court’s findings do not
specifically call out supporting facts, we affirm the order if the superior
court record supports its findings. Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214
Ariz. 445, 451–52 ¶ 19 (App. 2007).

¶17           To terminate parental rights, the superior court must find
DCS proved (1) one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and
convincing evidence and (2) termination is in the child’s best interests by a
preponderance of evidence. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146,
149–50 ¶ 8 (2018). In reviewing the superior court’s findings, this court does
not reweigh the evidence 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.” Jordan C., 223 Ariz. at 93 ¶ 18
(citation omitted).

¶18        The superior court terminated father’s rights based on
abandonment. See A.R.S. § 8-533.A.1. Arizona law defines “abandonment”
as:

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

       the failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to
       maintain regular contact with the child, including providing
       normal supervision. Abandonment includes a judicial finding
       that a parent has made only minimal efforts to support and
       communicate with the child. Failure to maintain a normal
       parental relationship with the child without just cause for a
       period of six months constitutes prima facie evidence of
       abandonment.

A.R.S. § 8-531(1). Under the abandonment ground, the superior court must
consider “whether a parent has provided reasonable support, maintained
regular contact, made more than minimal efforts to support and
communicate with the child, and maintained a normal parental
relationship.” Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249–50 ¶ 18
(2000). When determining abandonment, the superior court considers only
the parent’s conduct, not the parent’s subjective intent. Id.

¶19             Father argues the superior court’s order lacks sufficiently
specific, or “ultimate,” factual findings to support its conclusions. Ultimate
facts are “pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a
basis for the decision.” Gilliland v. Rodriquez, 77 Ariz. 163, 167 (1954). The
relevant facts for abandonment vary from case to case. Michael J., 196 Ariz.
at 250 ¶ 20. When determining whether a parent abandoned a child, the
superior court may consider the parent’s level and type of support, the
parent’s participation in visitation, the parent’s engagement in services, and
the parent’s delay in completing a paternity test. See, e.g., Kenneth B. v. Tina
B., 226 Ariz. 33, 37 ¶ 20 (App. 2010) (noting evidence of regular visitation,
gifts, clothes, cards, and food would factor into whether mother provided
reasonable support); Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JS-501904, 180 Ariz. 348,
352–53 (App. 1994) (considering mother’s failure to participate in services
as a factor favoring termination); Pima Cnty. Juv. Sev. Action No. S-114487,
179 Ariz. 86, 98 (1994) (considering delay in establishing paternity to decide
whether father promptly asserted his legal rights). Here, the superior court
found father’s delay in paternity testing and starting visitation evidenced
abandonment.

¶20            Father focuses on one of the superior court’s written findings,
in which it said father “has been minimally active in the case, taking several
months to establish paternity and begin visitation.” Father argues the
finding does not involve an “ultimate fact . . . leading to the Court’s
conclusion” but is merely a “recital of law with a conclusion.” Father relies
on Logan B. to argue the superior court’s order only draws conclusions. But
father’s analogy to Logan B. lacks merit.

                                        6
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
                        Decision of the Court

¶21            In Logan B., this court held the superior court erred as a matter
of law because its termination order contained conclusions of law without
any factual findings. 244 Ariz. at 536, 539 ¶¶ 11, 20. In Logan B., DCS had
moved to terminate parental rights on the grounds of substance abuse and
six months of out-of-home placement. Id. at 535 ¶ 3. The order in Logan B.
read as follows: “[the superior court finds] by clear and convincing
evidence that the State has proven the allegation of a history of chronic
abuse of dangerous drugs and controlled substances with respect to
[Father].” Id. at 535–36 ¶ 6. This court said the superior court’s order should
have stated facts supporting its conclusion about father’s history of
substance abuse rather than simply stating the statutory ground for
termination. Id. at 539 ¶ 20.

¶22            The superior court’s findings here go beyond those in Logan
B. True, the superior court here made a conclusion of law when it said father
“has abandoned the child and failed to maintain a normal parental
relationship with the child without just cause by failing to provide
reasonable support, failing to maintain regular contact, and/or failing to
provide normal supervision.” But the superior court went further,
supporting its legal conclusion by saying father “has been minimally active
in the case, taking several months to establish paternity and begin
visitation.” And the superior court further found father “has not
maintained or established a normal parent-child relationship.” In short, in
Logan B., the superior court merely restated the statutory ground for
termination in its order. Id. at 536, 539 ¶¶ 11, 20. But here the superior court
articulated three sufficiently specific factual findings to support its
conclusions. See Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 240–41 ¶¶ 22, 25.

¶23            The superior court, thus, did not abuse its discretion when it
found father abandoned the child. Reasonable evidence supports the
superior court’s abandonment finding. See A.R.S. § 8-531(1); Jordan C., 223
Ariz. at 93 ¶ 18. The superior court did not abuse its discretion because the
evidence establishes, and the superior court articulated, facts showing
father had not “provided reasonable support, maintained regular contact,
made more than minimal efforts to support and communicate with the
child, and maintained a normal parental relationship.” Michael J., 196 Ariz.
at 249–50 ¶ 18.

¶24          Father does not contest the superior court’s finding
termination is in the child’s best interests, and the record supports the
finding.

                                       7
      IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
                  Decision of the Court

                     CONCLUSION

¶25    We affirm.

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

                               8