In Re Dependency as to K.F.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.

No. 1 CA-JV 24-0200
FILED 02-25-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD536123
The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Attorney at Law, Phoenix
By Robert D. Rosanelli
Counsel for Appellant Father

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jennifer R. Blum
Counsel for Appellee Arizona Department of Child Safety
 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Clyde F. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order finding
his daughter dependent. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2011, Father was convicted of armed robbery and
aggravated assault and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in
Georgia. In 2022, Father was arrested in California, where he now lives, for
unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. See Cal. Penal Code
§ 29800(a)(1). That charge remains pending.

¶3 Father and M.M. (“Mother”), who is not a party to this appeal,
are the parents of K.F. (“Child”), who was born in July 2024. Two months
after Child was born, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) removed
Child from Mother’s home in Arizona after reports of significant domestic
violence between Mother and her boyfriend. DCS also took temporary
custody of a second child that Mother and her boyfriend have together.

¶4 Kim (a pseudonym) agreed to let Mother and the two children
live with her, and DCS implemented an in-home safety plan that required
Mother and the two children to live with Kim under certain restrictions.

¶5 DCS petitioned for dependency, and as relevant here, alleged
Father neglected Child by (1) failing to establish paternity or seek custody
or parenting time, (2) failing to establish a parent–child relationship, and
(3) being unwilling or unable to provide proper and effective parental care
and control. Father denied the allegations. After he and Mother signed an
acknowledgment of paternity, the juvenile court found Father to be Child’s
natural father.

¶6 In November 2024, Kim notified DCS that Mother was
violating the safety plan in several ways, including bringing male strangers
into the home without Kim’s permission. The juvenile court then issued an
order authorizing DCS to take physical custody of Child. DCS filed an
amended dependency petition alleging Father neglected to provide proper

2
 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.
Decision of the Court

and effective parental care and control of Child due to domestic violence
between Father and Mother. DCS also alleged that Father (1) yelled
profanities at Mother and engaged in “toxic conversations” with her, (2)
threatened to kill Kim, and (3) had a warrant for his arrest for felony firearm
possession in California.

¶7 In December 2024, the juvenile court held a dependency
adjudication hearing. The case manager testified that Mother has been
diagnosed with various disorders, including anxiety, depression, and
schizophrenic spectrum disorder. The case manager stated that Mother had
labeled her relationship with Father as “toxic” and that he berated her and
called her names. When asked whether DCS had sufficient information
about Father such that Child “could be placed safely in his physical custody
and the case could be dismissed,” the case manager said “No,” adding that
the conditions of Father’s home in California are unknown. When the case
manager spoke with Father about the need for a background check, Father
said he lived alone even though he was living with his girlfriend.

¶8 Kim testified that she heard phone conversations between
Mother and Father, including an incident before Child was born when
Father said, “he should kill me” and that “I was nothing but a B.” After
Father’s threat, Kim moved to another apartment. Mother asked to stay
with Kim but later gave Father the new apartment number when she
moved in. Kim also said Mother and Father argued before and after Child
was born, and Mother was “scared of him” because of the way he talked to
her and the way he acted.

¶9 Mother testified that she did not believe Child would be safe
under Father’s care, because Mother barely knows him, saying “I met him
only one time at the mall, and we were friends, and then I ended up getting
pregnant by him.” She explained that she did not want Child to go to
California with Father, noting Father’s girlfriend had threatened Mother in
phone calls and texts before Child was born, including telling Mother that
“she wished [Mother] could die and things like that.” When asked if Father
had done anything to stop the girlfriend’s behavior, Mother responded that
he actually “leads it on.” Mother explained that she has no interest in
having a relationship with Father but does not oppose safely co-parenting
with him.

¶10 Father testified that he never engaged in domestic violence
with Mother and that he regularly visited Child after she was born for three
months until DCS became involved. DCS had not yet allowed him any
visits, but Father expressed his willingness to travel to Arizona for

3
 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.
Decision of the Court

supervised visits. Father currently works full-time in California and stated
he was willing to care for Child. He explained that when he is working,
Child could be cared for by his mother or sister, who live about fifteen to
twenty-five minutes away, or by his girlfriend, who lives with him, even
though none of them have interacted with Child. Father added that his
girlfriend is willing to accept Child, and that his girlfriend’s issue is not with
Child but with Mother.

¶11 At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found that
DCS failed to prove domestic violence between Father and Mother, but it
granted DCS’s request to amend its petition to conform to the evidence.
Father does not challenge that amendment on appeal. The court also noted
its serious concerns with Father’s behavior that could place Child in harm’s
way. The court explained that Father’s release from prison was followed
by his alleged commission of a weapons offense, and when considered in
context with the threat made to Kim and cussing out Mother, reflected that
Father “has either impulsivity control issues, and/or anger control issues,
that under the circumstances and given the fact that this child is of such a
young and vulnerable age, that it creates significant concern . . . enough to
warrant a finding of dependency.”

¶12 In its written ruling, the juvenile court found the allegations
of the amended petition were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court explained that Kim “persuasively testified” that Father “made a
threat . . . that he would kill her,” causing her “significant fear” and that his
criminal history, considered “in context with the above behavior towards
Mother and [Kim], support a finding of dependency.” The court concluded
that given Father’s uncontrolled anger or impulsivity issues, which place
Child in an unsafe situation without appropriate oversight, he neglected
Child and was unable or unwilling to provide her with proper and effective
parental care and control. Father timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction
under A.R.S. § 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶13 Father argues the juvenile court’s dependency order is clearly
erroneous and unsupported by the evidence. We review the court’s ruling
for an abuse of discretion, Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 484, 488,
¶ 12 (App. 2015), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
sustaining the juvenile court’s findings, Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep‘t of Econ. Sec.,
211 Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 21 (App. 2005). The juvenile court is in the “best
position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of
witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O.,

4
 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.
Decision of the Court

209 Ariz. 332, 334, ¶ 4 (App. 2004). We accept the court’s factual findings
“if reasonable evidence and inferences support them” and we will affirm
the court’s legal conclusions “unless they are clearly erroneous.” Brionna J.
v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 478–79, ¶¶ 30–31 (2023). Legal
conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, as a matter of law, “no one could
reasonably find the evidence” supporting them meets the applicable
burden of proof. Id. at 479, ¶ 31.

¶14 A child is dependent if they are “[i]n need of proper and
effective parental care and control” and without a parent who is “willing to
exercise or capable of exercising such care and control.” A.R.S.
§ 8-201(15)(a)(i). One basis for a dependency finding is neglect, which
includes the “inability or unwillingness of a parent . . . to provide that child
with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if [it] causes
substantial risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” A.R.S.
§ 8-201(25)(a). DCS has the burden of proving a dependency by a
preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 8-844(C)(1).

¶15 Father disputes the juvenile court’s finding that he “neglected
and is unwilling or unable to provide proper and effective care and control
by exposing [Child] to anger issues and/or impulsivity issues” and that
Child had been placed in “an unsafe situation.” Father also argues the
record provides no support for the court’s finding that he has uncontrolled
anger and impulsivity issues.

¶16 Father first points to the court’s finding that Father cursed at
Mother during conversations, and that their relationship is toxic. He
contends that “cussing out” Mother does not mean he neglects Child or that
such conduct causes an unreasonable risk of harm to Child’s health or
welfare. He also takes issue with the court’s failure to elaborate on the
“toxicity” of his and Mother’s relationship. Father directs us to Mother’s
testimony, where she said that “[e]verybody has disagreements,” and that
she and Father have arguments about “dumb stuff.” But Mother described
their relationship as toxic, and she testified that he would berate her, call
her names, and cuss her out. This evidence, coupled with evidence
discussed below, could reasonably lead the juvenile court to conclude that
Father’s behavior towards Mother placed Child in an unsafe environment.

¶17 Father cites an article from Psychology Today, which addresses
the characteristics of a “toxic relationship,” to support his view that
Mother’s relationship with Father lacks those characteristics. Father’s
citation to the article does not comply with applicable rules for preparing
appellate briefs, nor does the record indicate that the article, or the

5
 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.
Decision of the Court

characteristics it discusses, were presented to the juvenile court. See Ariz.
R. P. Juv. Ct. 607(b) (incorporating ARCAP 13(a)(7) (arguments on appeal
must be supported by “citations of legal authorities”)); Christina G. v. Ariz.
Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, 234, ¶ 14 n.6 (App. 2011) (failure to develop
argument usually results in abandonment and waiver of issue). Even so,
the court’s references to cussing and toxicity must be viewed in context with
the rest of the court’s findings and the entire record, which establish that
the dependency determination was not made based on a single factor or
event, but a combination of circumstances showing that Father has
neglected, and he is unwilling or unable, to safely parent Child.

¶18 Father also challenges the court’s finding that he threatened
to kill Kim, claiming she did not say she heard a direct threat that he was
going to kill her. Relying on In re Kyle M., 200 Ariz. 447 (App. 2001), Father
argues his statement was not a “true threat” because he did not
“aggressive[ly] confront[]” Kim. However, Kyle M. involved whether
threatening behavior satisfied the element of a crime, which involves
considerations unique to criminal law and requires a higher burden of
proof than what we are addressing here. Id. at 451, ¶ 21 (describing a “true
threat” as a defendant’s statement to another person who reasonably
interprets the statement as a serious expression of an intention to kill or
inflict bodily harm).

¶19 The court found Kim’s testimony—that Father threatened to
kill her—“reliable and persuasive,” and the threat caused her “significant
fear.” Though Father disputes that finding, we do not reweigh the evidence
on appeal. Father did not physically confront Kim like what happened in
Kyle M. See id. at 452, ¶ 24 (noting that the defendant grabbed the victim’s
wrist and “told her to keep quiet about their prior conversation or he would
kill her”). Even so, Kim heard Father’s statement that he wanted to kill her,
which led her to take further actions for self-protection, including moving
to a different address. Reasonable evidence supports the court’s finding
that Father’s threat to kill Kim thereby placed Child in unsafe
circumstances.

¶20 Father also argues that neither his criminal convictions nor his
pending criminal charge supports a finding of neglect because those
offenses do not involve child abuse or neglect. But Father cites no authority
suggesting a parent’s criminal record must directly correlate with child
abuse or neglect in weighing whether a legal basis for dependency has been
established. And because the juvenile court considers the circumstances
existing at the time of adjudication, Father’s prior convictions and his
pending felony charge may be relevant factors for the court to consider in

6
 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO K.F.
Decision of the Court

deciding whether he is currently capable of exercising proper and effective
parental care and control. See Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47,
50, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (“[T]he court must determine whether a child is
dependent based upon the circumstances existing at the time of the
adjudication hearing.”); see also Willie G., 211 Ariz. at 235, ¶ 21 (recognizing
the juvenile court’s broad discretion in dependency cases because the
primary consideration is the child’s best interests).

¶21 Noting Father’s pending felony charge, the case manager
expressed concern whether Father would be incarcerated. Although Father
did not believe his pending criminal charge would lead to jail or prison time
and that probation or even dismissal was possible, he had not
communicated with his criminal defense attorney or received any
information other than an upcoming court date. The juvenile court acted
within its discretion in concluding that Father’s recent criminal conduct
after serving a ten-year prison sentence was a serious concern.

¶22 Finally, Father argues that because there was no testimony or
records presented by a psychologist or counselor, the evidence “does not
support the court’s opinion that [he] has anger and impulsivity issues.” But
Father cites no authority requiring expert testimony to prove such issues.
Thus, given the testimony of Kim and Mother, the juvenile court could
properly find that Father has anger and impulsive behavior problems
without hearing from a psychologist or counselor.

¶23 The evidence outlined above, and the reasonable inferences
derived from that evidence, support the juvenile court’s finding of
dependency based upon Father’s neglect and unwillingness or inability to
provide Child with proper and effective parental care and control.

CONCLUSION

¶24 On this record, we affirm.

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

7