In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Ij and Aj

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 I.J. AND A.J.

No. 1 CA-JV 24-0115
FILED 07-22-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015JD202200126
The Honorable Aaron Michael Demke, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Alice B., Colorado City
Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Autumn Spritzer
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Mohave County Legal Advocate, Kingman
By Bobbi Shin
Counsel for Children
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO I.J. AND A.J.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Daniel J. Kiley
joined.

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

¶1 Alice B. (“Mother”) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights to two daughters. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 We view and recount the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the juvenile court’s order, Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1,
2, ¶ 2 (2016), and use pseudonyms to protect the daughters’ identities, see
Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(i).

¶3 Mother is the natural parent of Sarah, born in May 2007, and
Nellie, born in August 2010.1 Mother lives in Colorado City and is a
member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–Day Saints
(FLDS), a fringe polygamous sect.

¶4 Samuel Bateman was anointed the sect’s prophet and wielded
great power over its members who were told to believe Bateman spoke for
God and must be obeyed. Bateman used women and underage girls as
currency to control the community, awarding child brides to devoted
followers and rescinding them for punishment. He referred to many
women and underage girls in the community as his “wives” and engaged
in sexual conduct with them.

¶5 Mother gave Bateman her daughters for a “spiritual
marriage.” Sarah was 13 years old; Nellie was 10. Mother later testified she
knew sexual activity “was part of a marriage relationship” and her
daughters routinely slept in Bateman’s bed. When asked if she approved
of Bateman’s sexual relations with her daughters, she asserted her right
against self-incrimination. The daughters later reported that Bateman
groped them in public, forced them to strip naked and watch other people

1 The court also terminated the father’s parental rights, but he is not a
party to this appeal.

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO I.J. AND A.J.
Decision of the Court

have sex, and later raped them in isolated areas. Bateman first raped Nellie
when she was 11 years old. Sarah was 13. When Sarah said she did not
want to have sex with Bateman, he told her “God was displeased” with her.

¶6 Bateman was arrested on I-40 in fall 2022, driving a pickup
truck and towing a box-trailer of female minors between the ages of eleven
and fourteen. The trailer had no air vents or cooling system and it
contained a five-gallon bucket to serve as a makeshift bathroom. Police
officers saw “children’s small fingers moving in the gap of the rear trailer
door.”

¶7 The FBI later executed a search warrant on Mother’s home
and found evidence she willingly gave her daughters to Bateman, was
aware of Bateman’s abuse and took no action to prevent Bateman’s access
to her daughters. The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) removed both
daughters.

¶8 With the daughters in DCS’s custody, DCS offered Mother
reunification services, including a psychological evaluation, counseling,
family therapy, supervised visits and transportation. Mother did not
cooperate. She refused the psychological evaluation and any individual
counseling. She participated in two sessions of family therapy. Although
Mother participated in supervised visits at first, DCS suspended the visits
after Mother brought photos of Bateman and told the daughters not to
testify against him. To date, Mother remains loyal to Bateman.

¶9 DCS moved to terminate Mother’s parental rights on willful-
abuse and fifteen-month time-in-care grounds under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2)
and (B)(8)(c). The juvenile court held a two-day trial, during which DCS
introduced, among other evidence, forensic interviews and journal entries
from the child brides, along with a news article documenting Bateman’s
abuse. The court terminated Mother’s parental rights under both grounds,
finding termination was in the daughters’ best interests. Mother timely
appealed. We have jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1) and -
2101(A)(1).

PROCEDURAL ERROR

¶10 Mother has waived her arguments on appeal because she
offered no record citations or supporting legal authorities in her brief. See
ARCAP 13(a) (requiring that briefs contain “citations of legal authorities
and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the
appellant relies”); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 607(b) (applying ARCAP 13 to juvenile
appeals); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (noting

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO I.J. AND A.J.
Decision of the Court

failure to comply with ARCAP 13 “can constitute abandonment and
waiver” of a claim). But we exercise our discretion to address Mother’s
arguments because a child’s best interests hangs in the balance. DeLong v.
Merrill, 233 Ariz. 163, 166, ¶ 9 (App. 2013); Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273,
¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trumps the discretionary
doctrine of waiver).

DISCUSSION

¶11 Parents have a fundamental but not absolute interest in the
care and custody of their children. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196
Ariz. 246, 248–49, ¶¶ 11–12 (2000). The juvenile court may terminate
parental rights if it finds clear and convincing evidence of statutory
grounds for termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B), and termination is in the
child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence. Valerie M. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 331, 334, ¶ 9 (2009).

¶12 Mother does not contest the grounds for termination or best
interests. She instead argues the juvenile court erred by considering
“inconsistent” forensic interviews and hearsay. We review the juvenile
court’s evidentiary decisions for an abuse of discretion and resulting
prejudice. Lohmeier v. Hammer, 214 Ariz. 57, 61, ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (citation
omitted). The juvenile court does not abuse its discretion if its decisions are
“supported by any reasonable evidence.” Id. at 62, ¶ 7 (citation omitted).

¶13 We discern no abuse of discretion. The Arizona Rules of
Evidence do not preclude trial courts from considering “inconsistent”
evidence. See Ariz. R. Evid. (no rule barring admissibility for being
inconsistent). The interviews were admissible. What is more, the juvenile
court was in the best position to weigh evidence and assess credibility. See
Demetrius L., 239 Ariz. at 3, ¶ 9.

¶14 Even assuming the evidence was inadmissible hearsay, its
admission was harmless. See Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 70,
73, ¶ 12 (App. 2015). The record catalogues Bateman’s abuse with
overwhelming evidence, including the forensic interviews and Mother’s
own testimony. See State v. Williams, 133 Ariz. 220, 226 (1982) (admission of
cumulative evidence constitutes harmless error).

¶15 Second, Mother claims the juvenile court was biased because
it referred to her and her community as “Samuelites.” We review for
fundamental error because Mother did not object at the termination
hearing. See Brenda D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 243 Ariz. 437, 447, ¶ 37 (2018).

4
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO I.J. AND A.J.
Decision of the Court

Mother must prove “(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3)
the error caused [her] prejudice.” Id. at 447–48, ¶ 38 (citations omitted).

¶16 Mother has shown no bias. We presume trial court judges are
“free of bias and prejudice.” State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 541, ¶ 38 (App.
2005). Judicial bias or prejudice must “arise from an extrajudicial source
and not from what the judge has done in his participation in the case.” State
v. Granados, 235 Ariz. 321, 326, ¶ 14 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

¶17 Third, Mother argues DCS seized her daughters without legal
authority. That is incorrect. DCS seized and removed the daughters
pursuant to a valid court order. A.R.S. § 8-821(A)(1).

¶18 Finally, Mother challenges the propriety of words spoken by
daughters’ counsel during a status hearing on December 14, 2022, but she
has no standing to make that challenge. See Pima Cnty. Juv. Severance Action
No. S-113432, 178 Ariz. 288, 291 (App. 1993) (Father had no standing to
challenge his children’s representation).

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm.

5
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO I.J. AND A.J.
Kiley, J., specially concurring
K I L E Y, J., specially concurring:

¶20 I concur in the Majority’s decision to affirm the termination of
the parental rights of Alice B. (“Mother”) to “Sarah” and “Nellie.” The
evidence in the record overwhelmingly supports the juvenile court’s
finding of grounds for termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2) based on
Mother’s willful failure to protect her preteen daughters by knowingly
allowing them to be sexually assaulted and then falsely denying that the
sexual abuse ever happened. The record likewise supports the juvenile
court’s determination that terminating Mother’s parental rights would be
in the children’s best interests by freeing them for adoption into a home
where they will be loved and protected. Finally, for the reasons stated by
the Majority, see supra ¶¶ 12-18, Mother’s challenges to the juvenile court
proceedings lack merit.

¶21 I decline, however, to join Paragraph 4. Mother’s parental
rights were terminated because of her actions, not her religious affiliation,
and so Paragraph 4’s discussion of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter–Day Saints is, in my view, neither necessary nor
appropriate.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

6