In Re Term of Parental Rights as to X.B. and D.B.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 X.B. and D.B.

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0011
FILED 7-22-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. JD42860
JS21376
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Mesa
By Seth Draper
Advisory Counsel for Appellant

Vanessa M., Phoenix
Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jennifer R. Blum
Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Appellee Children
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO X.B. and D.B.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Andrew M. Jacobs joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Vanessa M. (“Mother”) appeals the denial of her motion to set
aside the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights to X.B. and
D.B. (“Children”). Mother’s counsel filed a motion under Arizona Rule of
Procedure for the Juvenile Court 607(e)(1)(B), avowing that, after reviewing
the record, counsel found no non-frivolous question of law. Mother filed a
supplemental brief. Because Mother has not demonstrated the court
abused its discretion, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother previously appealed the juvenile court’s termination
order. See In re X.B., 2024 WL 2032759, at *1 ¶ 1 (Ariz. App. May 7, 2024)
(mem. decision). The court terminated Mother’s parental rights on grounds
of abuse and neglect and because Mother continued to contact, and
expressed a desire to reconnect with, her child’s abuser. Id. at *2 ¶¶ 7–8.
The juvenile court also found it was in the Children’s best interests to “not
be subject to abuse and neglect.” Id. at *2 ¶ 8. This court affirmed. Id. at *3
¶ 15.

¶3 Mother petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
While that petition was pending, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”)
disclosed documents it did not disclose before Mother’s termination
hearing. The supreme court stayed the petition to allow the juvenile court
to consider the new documents.

¶4 Meanwhile, Mother asked the juvenile court to set aside the
termination. Mother argued the new documents “contain evidence that
Mother consistently and appropriately participated in visitation, engaged
in and benefitted from counseling, and successfully completed the
. . . parenting-skills program.” And, she argued, they “rebut[] the court’s
finding that Mother did not learn enough to be able to protect [the
Children].”

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO X.B. and D.B.
Decision of the Court

¶5 The court acknowledged the documents show Mother was
learning about healthy relationships and how to keep her children safe. But
the court concluded they did not affect the court’s finding that Mother was
“simultaneously maintaining and concealing a relationship with her
children’s abuser.” So the court denied Mother’s motions.

¶6 Mother timely appealed; we have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. §§ 8-
235(A), 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Mother argues the court abused its discretion by denying her
motions because she “pose[s] no risk” to the Children. We review the
denial of a motion to set aside for an abuse of discretion. Trisha A. v. Dep’t
of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 84, 91 ¶ 27 (2019).

¶8 To succeed on a motion to set aside, a party must demonstrate
a meritorious defense. Id. at 90 ¶ 26. Here, the juvenile court terminated
Mother’s parental rights chiefly because it found she had maintained and
concealed a relationship with her child’s abuser. So, for the court to set
aside termination, the new documents had to undercut (at least to some
extent) the court’s finding about her relationship with the child’s abuser.
See id.

¶9 Mother has not argued, let alone established, that the new
documents undercut the court’s key findings. Instead, Mother argues the
documents show she was punctual, brought appropriate supplies, and
demonstrated a “calm and supportive demeanor” when visiting the
Children, and that she received positive feedback from individuals
supervising those visits. Mother also argues the documents show the
Children responded positively to visits and she completed required classes.
Mother is correct that the new documents support that she behaved
appropriately during visits and completed classes to improve her parenting
and relationship skills—and we do not discount her efforts. But the
documents do not undercut the court’s findings that Mother knew or
should have known her boyfriend was abusing her child and had
maintained and concealed a relationship with him. Because the new
documents do not undercut those key findings, the juvenile court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside termination.

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO X.B. and D.B.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶10 We affirm the juvenile court’s denial of Mother’s motion to set
aside termination.

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

4