In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.E. and M.E.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 R.E. and M.E.

No. 1 CA-JV 24-0148
FILED 04-01-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JS21962
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Czop Law Firm, PLLC, Higley
By Steven Czop
Counsel for Appellant Saul E.

Barreda Law, PLLC, Gilbert
By Bonnie Platter
Counsel for Appellee Meagan O.
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.E. and M.E.
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 Saul E. ("Father") appeals the juvenile court's order
terminating his parental rights to R.E. and M.E. ("the Children"). For the
following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Meagan O. ("Mother") began their relationship in
2008, never married, and separated by early 2017. Father and Mother are
the Children's biological parents. Mother gave birth to R.E. in 2011 and
M.E. in 2015.

¶3 Initially, neither party petitioned to establish parenting time
or child support, and they shared equal parenting time for approximately
six months. The parties later agreed that Father would have parenting time
every weekend. Father and Mother continued this arrangement until
September 2020.

¶4 Father lived with a girlfriend and had three more children
through that relationship. In September 2020, Father's girlfriend informed
Mother that M.E. had touched one of her half-sisters inappropriately during
a weekend visit at Father's home. After the incident, Father ceased all
contact with the Children. Between September 2020 and March 2024, Father
had neither parenting time nor any contact with the Children. Father also
did not call, text, or email Mother about the Children and provided no child
support.

¶5 Father's first attempt to reestablish a relationship with the
Children occurred in February 2023 when Father petitioned to establish
paternity, legal decision-making, and child support. Mother petitioned to
terminate Father's parental rights in December 2023, alleging abandonment
under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1).

¶6 In March 2024, the parties participated in mediation and
agreed that Father would have one hour of supervised visitation with the

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.E. and M.E.
Decision of the Court

Children every other weekend. The visitation schedule continued until the
termination adjudication hearing at the end of June 2024. After the three-
day hearing, the juvenile court found clear and convincing evidence that
Father had abandoned the Children because he failed to maintain a parent-
child relationship with them "from September 13, 2020 through the filing of
the Petition for Termination [in December 2023]." The juvenile court found,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that terminating Father's parental
rights was in the Children's best interests because Mother's new husband
("Stepfather") wanted to adopt the Children, which would provide stability
to their lives.

¶7 Father timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶8 Father contends the juvenile court erred by terminating his
parental rights because he did not abandon the Children and termination
was not in the Children's best interests.

¶9 The juvenile court may terminate a parent's rights if it finds
(1) a statutory ground for termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B) by clear and
convincing evidence and (2) termination is in the child's best interests by a
preponderance of the evidence. Brionna J. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 255 Ariz.
471, 477, ¶ 20 (2023). We review the juvenile court's termination order for
an abuse of discretion, Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43,
47, ¶ 8 (App. 2004), and will accept the court's findings of fact "if reasonable
evidence and inferences support them," Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 478, ¶ 30
(quoting Jessie D. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 251 Ariz. 574, 580, ¶ 10 (2021)). We
will affirm the "juvenile court's legal conclusions regarding the statutory
ground for termination . . . unless they are clearly erroneous." Id. at 478–79,
¶ 31.

I. Abandonment.

¶10 Father argues he did not abandon the Children because he
petitioned the juvenile court to establish visitation and had visitation with
the Children from March 2024 until the termination adjudication hearing.
We disagree.

¶11 Under A.R.S. § 8-531(1), "abandonment" is:

the failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to
maintain regular contact with the child, including providing

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.E. and M.E.
Decision of the Court

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.

In making its abandonment determination, the juvenile court should
consider "whether a parent has provided reasonable support, maintained
regular contact with the child, and provided normal supervision." Kenneth
B. v. Tina B., 226 Ariz. 33, 37, ¶ 18 (App. 2010) (cleaned up). Abandonment
is measured by the parent's conduct, not their subjective intent. Michael J.
v. Ariz. Dep't. of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249, ¶ 18 (2000).

¶12 The juvenile court heard from both parents at the termination
adjudication hearing. Between September 2020 and Father's February 2023
petition to establish paternity, Father did not call the Children, text or email
Mother about the Children, or provide child-support payments. Father did
not have any contact with the Children from September 2020 until March
2024.

¶13 Father contends that his February 2023 petition to establish
paternity precluded the juvenile court from terminating his parental rights
on the ground of abandonment. But as of February 2023, Father had
already failed to maintain a normal parental relationship with the Children
for 29 months. See A.R.S. § 8-531(1) (failure to maintain a normal parent-
child relationship without just cause for six months is prima facie evidence
of abandonment). And Father provides no "just cause" to explain his failure
to maintain a relationship with the Children.

¶14 Father claims that he could not petition the juvenile court
until February 2023 because he did not have Mother's address and could
not locate her or the Children. Mother acknowledged she and the Children
moved in October 2020 but explained that they moved in with Mother's
parents and that Father was aware of the move. The juvenile court also
heard evidence that Father had Mother's phone number and email, and
contact information for Mother's family members and friends, but failed to
contact anyone to locate the Children. Reasonable evidence supports the
juvenile court's finding that Father did not establish just cause for his failure
to maintain any relationship with the Children for at least 29 months. We
do not reweigh the evidence. Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146,
151, ¶ 18 (2018). On this record, the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Father had abandoned the Children. See Toni W.

4
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.E. and M.E.
Decision of the Court

v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 61, 67, ¶¶ 17–20 (App. 1999) (affirming
abandonment finding when mother made no effort to see or locate her child
for 22 months).

II. Best-Interests.

¶15 Father next argues that termination was not in the Children's
best interests because he made efforts to see the Children after Mother
petitioned for termination and the Children wanted to maintain a
relationship with him.

¶16 Termination is in a child's best interests if the child will (1)
benefit from termination or (2) be harmed absent termination. Alma S., 245
Ariz. at 150, ¶ 13. When performing the best-interests analysis, courts
"presume that the interests of the parent and child diverge because the court
has already found the existence of one of the statutory grounds for
termination by clear and convincing evidence." Id. at ¶ 12 (quoting Kent K.
v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 286, ¶ 35 (2005)). The court must balance the
parent's diluted interest in maintaining his parental rights against the
child's interest in stability and security. Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz.
1, 4, ¶ 15 (2016).

¶17 The juvenile court found termination was in the Children's
best interests because terminating Father's rights would allow Stepfather to
adopt the Children and "provide stability and permanency in their lives."
It is well settled that a child's prospective adoption can "warrant[] a best-
interests finding primarily on that basis." Id. at 5, ¶ 16; Alma S., 245 Ariz. at
151, ¶ 14.

¶18 The juvenile court heard evidence that the Children have
lived happily with Stepfather and Mother since at least May 2020.
Stepfather is involved in the Children's daily lives and is the father figure
the Children turn to for guidance and support. The Children call Stepfather
"Dad" and Mother testified to the close and loving bond Stepfather shares
with the Children. Stepfather advised the court that he "wholeheartedly"
intended to adopt the Children if termination were granted, and the
Children have repeatedly expressed their desire for Stepfather to adopt
them. A home-study report also recommended that the court terminate
Father's parental rights "in order to pursue step-parent adoption." The
record provides ample support for the juvenile court's best-interests
finding.

5
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO R.E. and M.E.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶19 We affirm.

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

6