Court Opinion

ID: 9881725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 18:18:28.448539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:22.957549
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 G.B.

                              No. 1 CA-JV 23-0027
                                FILED 10-3-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                              No. JD41099
                The Honorable Amanda M. Parker, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Czop Law Firm, PLLC, Higley
By Steven Czop
Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Emily M. Stokes
Co-Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

The Huff Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson
By Daniel R. Huff, Laura J. Huff
Co-Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety
            IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO G.B.
                        Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1            Kaylynn K. (“Mother”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to G.B. (“Child”) based on the length of her
incarceration for felony convictions. We affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2             Mother and Christian B. (“Father”) are biological parents of
Child, born in June 2021. Father consented to the termination of his parental
rights and is not a party here. Child tested positive for methamphetamine
and fentanyl at birth, and was hospitalized for 11 days. Mother did not visit
child for 10 of those days.

¶3           The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) was alerted about
the positive drug test and investigated.      Mother admitted using
methamphetamine and fentanyl during the pregnancy, but she refused to
take any drug tests.

¶4           DCS took temporary custody of Child when he was
discharged from the hospital and placed him with his paternal
grandmother. DCS offered reunification services to Mother, including
random urinalysis testing, substance abuse treatment, transportation,
supervised visits and parenting classes. Mother would not engage and
failed to participate in these services. Child’s paternal grandmother
repeatedly asked Mother to visit Child, even offering to arrange rides, but
Mother did not visit.

¶5            Less than three months after Child’s birth, Mother was
arrested and incarcerated for possession of narcotic drugs, possession of
drugs and drug paraphernalia, and possession of narcotic drugs for sale.
Mother was sentenced to three years’ incarceration for her felony drug
convictions in April 2022.

¶6            DCS encouraged Mother to participate in available
reunification services, including parenting, substance abuse and anger-

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

management classes. Mother remained disengaged and disconnected from
Child while incarcerated with seven total video calls, but she completed
some available programs, including substance abuse and parenting classes.

¶7            DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights based on
neglect and length of incarceration. After a two-day trial, the court
terminated Mother’s parental rights on the length-of-incarceration ground,
finding that Mother had no existing relationship or bond with Child before
her incarceration, and that DCS “made diligent and appropriate efforts at
reunification.” Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S.
§§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

                                 DISCUSSION

¶8             Parents have a fundamental but not absolute right to the
custody and control of their children. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.,
196 Ariz. 246, 248–49, ¶¶ 11–12 (2000). To terminate parental rights, the
juvenile court must find at least one statutory ground under A.R.S. § 8-
533(B) by clear and convincing evidence, and must find that termination is
in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. Michael J.,
196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12; Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288, ¶ 41 (2005). We
will affirm the court’s decision if supported by reasonable evidence, Jennifer
B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 189 Ariz. 553, 555 (App. 1997), viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s decision, Jesus
M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 13 (App. 2002). We do
not reweigh conflicting evidence or redetermine the credibility of
witnesses. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 151–52, ¶¶ 18–19
(2018).

¶9             A parent’s rights over her child may be severed under the
length-of-incarceration ground “if the sentence of that parent is of such
length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of
years.” A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4). The statute provides no definition for “normal
home” or “period of years,” but our supreme court has described “the
inquiry [as] individualized and fact specific,” Jessie D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety,
251 Ariz. 574, 579, ¶ 9 (2021) (citation omitted), and has articulated six non-
exclusive factors:

       (1) the length and strength of any parent-child relationship
       existing when incarceration begins, (2) the degree to which
       the parent-child relationship can be continued and nurtured
       during the incarceration, (3) the age of the child and the
       relationship between the child’s age and the likelihood that

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

       incarceration will deprive the child of a normal home, (4) the
       length of the sentence, (5) the availability of another parent to
       provide a normal home life, and (6) the effect of the
       deprivation of a parental presence on the child at issue.

Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251–52, ¶ 29. “A lack of evidence on one or several
of [these] factors may or may not require reversal or remand on a severance
order.” Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 450, ¶ 15 (App.
2007).

¶10          Mother contends the record does not support termination
under these non-exclusive factors. We examine each factor in turn.

I.     Pre-incarceration relationship.

¶11           The first factor is “the length and strength of any parent-child
relationship existing when incarceration begins.” Michael J., 196 Ariz. at
251–52, ¶ 29. The juvenile court found that “Mother made no effort to
establish any sort of parental bond or relationship with [Child] prior to her
incarceration,” and that “there was no existing relationship or bond
between Mother and [Child] that [DCS] could have maintained through
reunification services while Mother was in custody.”

¶12           The record has reasonable evidence to support these findings.
Mother was incarcerated just three months after Child was born. Even
Mother concedes she did not establish a strong relationship with Child
before her incarceration.

II.    Relationship during incarceration.

¶13            The second factor is “the degree to which the parent-child
relationship can be continued and nurtured during the incarceration.”
Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 252, ¶ 29.

¶14          The record has reasonable evidence to support a finding that
Mother did not develop a relationship with Child while incarcerated.
Although she completed parenting classes and substance abuse programs
during this time, Mother has failed to regularly contact Child, despite
Child’s paternal grandmother’s offer to facilitate visits and
communications.

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

III.   Age of children and deprivation of normal home.

¶15            The third factor is “the age of the child and the relationship
between the child’s age and the likelihood that incarceration will deprive
the child of a normal home.” Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 252, ¶ 29. The juvenile
court found that “Mother’s incarceration will deprive [Child] of a normal
home.”

¶16           The record has reasonable evidence to support that finding.
Child was almost three months-old when Mother was jailed, and Mother
has been physically absent Child’s entire life. Child will be almost three
years-old when Mother is released and has never lived with Mother during
that significant developmental period. A DCS witness offered testimony
about the importance of permanency and normalcy in those early years.
The court found that “[Child] is bonded to his paternal grandmother as a
parental figure.” Child has been living with his paternal grandmother since
he was just a few weeks old, and “she is the only caregiver he has ever
known.”

¶17            We are unpersuaded by Mother’s focus on the number of
years she will have with the Child after her anticipated release. Our
decision must account for the historical facts and Mother’s extended
absence to date, which has deprived Child of a normal home for much of
his life. See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 212, 215, ¶ 14 (App.
2016). Adding to that, Mother will still require significant services when
released from prison.

IV.    Length of absence.

¶18          The fourth factor is “the length of the sentence.” Michael J.,
196 Ariz. at 252, ¶ 29. Mother’s official release date is October 2025,
although she is scheduled for April 2024. The juvenile court found that
Mother would be incarcerated for three years and that “[r]eunification
would not be possible immediately upon her release.”

¶19           The record has reasonable evidence to support that finding
because Mother will need to demonstrate sobriety outside of incarceration.
She will also need substantial services and counseling before any
reunification, including parenting classes and continuous testing of
substance abuse issues with “consistent clean results.” Beyond that, she
will need time to adjust before any possible reunion with Child, will need
to “demonstrate the newly acquired skills and caregiver capacities,” and
will need to “maintain stable housing and employment.” Child will be
almost three years-old and had no physical contact with Mother for nearly

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

his entire life, including “during the most crucial time for his bonding and
attachment.”

¶20            Mother counters that the juvenile court did not consider she
could be released a little over one year after the termination hearing. We
are not persuaded. The “relevant period is the entire period of
incarceration, not solely the time after entry of the termination order,”
Jeffrey P., 239 Ariz. at 214, ¶ 9, and the court may consider a parent’s
anticipated release date, Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547,
550, ¶ 15 (App. 2010).

V.     Available parent.

¶21            The fifth factor is “the availability of another parent to
provide a normal home life.” Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 252, ¶ 29. The court
found “there is no other parent or permanent guardian available to provide
a normal home life,” and the record has reasonable evidence to support that
finding. The juvenile court terminated Father’s parental rights based on
consent, and severance makes it possible for Child to be adopted. See
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 96, 98, ¶ 10 (App. 2016)
(severance “make[s] the Children eligible for adoption”). The court
recognized that Child’s paternal grandmother planned to adopt Child,
representing “a caregiver who is willing and able to care for him and meet
all of his needs.”

VI.    Effect of deprivation.

¶22           The sixth factor is “the effect of the deprivation of a parental
presence on the child at issue.” Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 252, ¶ 29. The
juvenile court found that Mother’s incarceration, “coupled with Mother’s
inaction during the first few months of [Child’s] life, has deprived [Child]
of any real parent-child relationship.” The record has reasonable evidence
to support this finding.

¶23         In sum, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it
terminated Mother’s parental rights based on the length-of-incarceration
ground.

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

                         CONCLUSION

¶24    We affirm.

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

                                   7