In Re Term of Parental Rights as to K.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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 K.C.

No. 1 CA-JV 24-0119
FILED 05-15-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD534907
The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Moshier Law Firm PC, Phoenix
By Trail Potter, Jennifer K. Moshier
Counsel for Intervenors/Appellants

Amanda Hopkins, Mesa
Appellant

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Tucson
By Jennifer R. Blum
Counsel for Appellee
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO K.C.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Grandparents, acting as Intervenors, and Mother appeal from
the juvenile court's order terminating Mother's parental rights. For the
following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In May 2022, the Department of Child Safety ("DCS")
removed Mother's two children from the home due to Mother's substance
abuse and placed them with Grandparents. Mother gave birth to K.C. one
month later. Mother regularly used fentanyl and methadone during the
pregnancy. After investigation, K.C. was placed with her maternal aunt
and uncle. But K.C. and her siblings maintained regular visitation.

¶3 DCS considered placing K.C. with Grandparents, but placed
K.C. with her aunt and uncle after Grandparents expressed concern about
her required level of care due to substance exposure during pregnancy. In
October 2022, Mother began substance-abuse treatment. During treatment,
Mother repeatedly tested positive for fentanyl. Mother entered inpatient
drug treatment in June 2023 but relapsed again that July.

¶4 Throughout this period, K.C. remained in the care of her aunt
and uncle. In November 2023, the court granted Grandparents' motion to
intervene in the placement of K.C. Grandparents then moved for change of
physical custody and requested K.C. be placed with them. The court found
that removing K.C. from her current placement was not in her best interests
and denied the motion.

¶5 Meanwhile, Mother sporadically participated in substance-
abuse treatment but stopped altogether by January 2024. In February 2024,
DCS moved to terminate Mother's parental rights to allow K.C.'s aunt and
uncle to adopt her. In response, Mother moved to appoint Grandparents

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

as K.C.'s permanent guardians. The juvenile court denied Mother's motion
and terminated her parental rights in June 2024.

¶6 Appellants timely appealed the termination order, and we
have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights. But
two of the issues raised in her opening brief concern the juvenile court's
denial of: (1) Grandparents' motion to place K.C. with them; and (2)
Mother's guardianship motion. Mother argues the juvenile court erred by
denying a guardianship hearing and failing to order DCS to complete a
bonding assessment between K.C. and her aunt and uncle. Mother also
argues that DCS failed to provide appropriate reunification services.

¶8 Grandparents argue the juvenile court erred by: (1) denying
their change-of-custody motion; (2) terminating Mother's parental rights;
(3) failing to make findings that placing the siblings together was
impossible; (4) finding DCS made reasonable efforts to place the siblings
together; and (5) excluding them from the termination trial.

¶9 We address these arguments in turn.

I. Mother's Claims.

A. Denial of Mother's Permanent-Guardianship Motion.

¶10 On March 26, 2024, Mother moved to appoint Grandparents
as K.C.'s permanent guardians pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-872. Such motions
are known as "Title 8 guardianship motions" and orders "granting or
denying a Title 8 guardianship motion" are final orders. Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct.
601(b)(2)(I). A party has 15 days to appeal from a final order. Ariz. R. P.
Juv. Ct. 603(a)(1)(A).

¶11 Mother argues the juvenile court never ruled on the motion,
depriving her of the ability to appeal. This is incorrect. The court denied
the motion on April 16, 2024. And Mother acknowledged that the court had
denied her motion when she sought reconsideration of the denial on April
24, 2024. Mother did not file her notice of appeal until July 2024. Because
Mother failed to timely appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review this claim.

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

B. Siblings' Rights to be Placed Together.

¶12 Mother next argues the juvenile court erred by not ordering a
bonding assessment between K.C. and her maternal aunt and uncle, which
affected K.C.'s placement with her siblings. The State notes that placement
orders may not be appealable. Because the bonding assessment only relates
to the placement decision, and Mother's parental rights have since been
terminated, we need not address this issue. See In re O.M., 254 Ariz. 543,
545, ¶ 9 (App. 2023) ("A parent lacks standing to challenge a child's
placement once parental rights are terminated.").

C. DCS's Failure to Make Reunification Efforts.

¶13 Mother next argues that DCS did not make sufficient
reunification efforts.

¶14 When a party fails to argue a claim, this Court may deem the
issue as waived. Crystal E. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577, ¶ 5
(App. 2017). In her opening brief, Mother does not explain how DCS failed
to make sufficient reunification efforts nor point to services that would have
been successful in reunifying the family had they been offered. Instead,
Mother only cites and discusses cases regarding DCS's general
responsibility to provide reunification services. Accordingly, Mother has
waived her argument regarding DCS's reunification efforts. See Christina
G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, 234, ¶ 14 n.6 (App. 2011) (stating
that failure to develop an argument on appeal usually results in waiver of
the issue).

II. Grandparents' Claims.

A. Denial of Change-of-Custody Motion.

¶15 Grandparents argue the juvenile court erred in denying their
change-of-custody motion, and the court was required to make a finding
that it was impossible to place the siblings together.

¶16 Grandparents have "no right to placement of a child in the
absence of an order granting third-party rights." Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child
Safety, 244 Ariz. 347, 350, ¶ 7 (App. 2018). The juvenile court granted
Grandparents' motion to intervene but did not grant them third-party
rights. See id. (stating a grandparent has no third-party rights absent a court
order granting such rights under A.R.S. § 25-409). Therefore, Grandparents
are not an aggrieved party and, like Mother, see supra ¶ 12, cannot appeal
the denial of their change-of-custody motion. See A.R.S. § 8-235(A) (stating

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

a party must be aggrieved to appeal); Jewel C., 244 Ariz. at 350, ¶ 7
(concluding that because grandparent had no right to placement of the
child, they were not aggrieved by the ruling on a change-of-placement
motion).

B. Denial of Guardianship Hearing.

¶17 Grandparents next argue the juvenile court erred by denying
Mother's motion to establish a permanent guardianship without holding an
evidentiary hearing. As addressed supra ¶¶ 10–11, Grandparents did not
timely appeal and therefore we lack jurisdiction to address this issue.

C. Termination of Parental Rights.

¶18 Next, Grandparents argue that terminating Mother's parental
rights was not in K.C.'s best interests. An aggrieved party may appeal a
final order. A.R.S. § 8-235(A). But, as discussed supra ¶ 16, Grandparents
are not aggrieved parties. Therefore, Grandparents lack standing to
challenge the termination of Mother's parental rights. See Jewel C., 244 Ariz.
at 349–50, ¶¶ 3–7 (concluding that, despite grandmother's right to
intervene, she had no right to placement of the child, and was therefore not
an aggrieved party); see also Patricia S. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 1 CA-JV 20-
0371, 2021 WL 2941762 (Ariz. App. July 13, 2021) (mem. decision)
(analyzing when a grandparent may be an aggrieved party to challenge a
parent's termination).

D. Exclusion of Grandparents from Termination Trial.

¶19 Grandparents next argue the juvenile court erred by not
allowing them to participate in the termination adjudication hearing
because the court granted their motion to intervene.

¶20 But Grandparents' motion to intervene was for the limited
purpose of determining K.C.'s placement, not termination of Mother's
parental rights. And Grandparents' opening brief acknowledges that in
granting the motion, the juvenile court judge made statements limiting the
scope of intervention to placement issues. Accordingly, we find no error.
See Ariz. R. P. Juv. Ct. 113(c) (stating that intervening parties may not
participate "on all issues" if the court "limit[s] the scope" of the
intervention).

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

E. Reasonable Efforts to Place Children Together.

¶21 Grandparents also argue the juvenile court erred by finding
DCS made reasonable efforts to place the children together. As discussed
supra ¶ 16, Grandparents lack standing to raise this issue and we decline to
address it.

CONCLUSION

¶22 We affirm.

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

6