In Re Term of Parental Rights as to U.C. and A.C.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
FILED 10-31-2023

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.
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO U.C. and A.C.
Decision of the Court

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.

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

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.

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

¶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).

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

¶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.

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

5