In Re Term of Parental Rights as to K.A. and L.A.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0043
FILED 10-06-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD535548
No. JS520921
No. JS21895
The Honorable Adele Ponce, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Czop Law Firm PLLC, Queen Creek
By Steven Czop
Counsel for Mother

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Veronica F. Rios
Counsel for Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix
By Amanda Adams
Counsel for Children
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO K.A. and L.A.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1 Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights on the
grounds of abandonment, prolonged substance abuse, and continued
out-of-home placement, arguing insufficient trial evidence supports any of
the grounds. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In August 2023, the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) took
custody of Mother’s two minor children because it observed drugs within
reach of the children and an unsafe living environment. Through April
2024, Mother only visited with the children four times and appeared to be
under the influence of drugs each time. She refused to engage in services
and did not communicate with DCS.

¶3 In April 2024, Mother was arrested and jailed on a federal
charge. The children’s placement, a grandparent, informed DCS of
Mother’s incarceration. DCS attempted unsuccessfully to contact Mother
while she was incarcerated. By May 2024, the children’s placement had
provided Mother with contact information for DCS, but Mother did not
contact DCS until August 2024. Mother did not provide her children with
cards, gifts, letters, or any other form of support.

¶4 Based on her criminal charge, Mother entered an inpatient
substance-abuse program. Mother communicated with DCS after entering
the program. In September, she had a successful visit with her children.
Another visit was planned, but Mother did not attend because of
transportation issues.

¶5 While Mother was in custody and DCS could not contact her,
DCS petitioned to terminate her parental rights on the grounds of
abandonment, prolonged substance abuse, and extended out-of-home
placement. The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights on all

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO K.A. and L.A.
Decision of the Court

three grounds after an adjudication.1 Mother appealed, and we have
jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and
8-235(A), and Arizona Rule of Procedure for the Juvenile Court 601(a) and
(b)(2)(F).

DISCUSSION

¶6 The termination of parental rights requires (1) clear and
convincing evidence of a statutory ground for termination and (2) a
preponderance of evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests.
Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz. 146, 149-50, ¶ 8 (2018). Mother does
not contest the best-interests finding, so the only issue is whether any of the
grounds for termination can be upheld. See Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 3 (App. 2002) (When severance may be affirmed
on one of the statutory grounds, we need not consider alternative
grounds.); see also Crystal D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 241 Ariz. 576, 577-58,
¶¶ 5-7 (App. 2017) (The failure to challenge one of the two prongs waives
any argument to that prong.).

¶7 “[W]e accept the juvenile court’s findings of fact if reasonable
evidence and inferences support them,” Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz.
1, 3, ¶ 9 (2016), and will only overturn the court’s finding of sufficient
evidence supporting a statutory factor if “no one could reasonably find the
evidence to be clear and convincing,” Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255
Ariz. 471, 478-79, ¶ 31 (2023) (quotation omitted); A.R. v. Dep’t of Child
Safety, 246 Ariz. 402, 405, ¶ 6 (App. 2019).

¶8 The failure to maintain a normal parental relationship with
the child without just cause for six months creates a rebuttable presumption
that a parent abandoned his or her child. A.R.S. § 8-531(1); In re B.W., ___
Ariz. ___, ___, ¶¶ 17-18, 572 P.3d 88, 94-95 (2025). And the juvenile court
can also find abandonment when a parent fails to “provide reasonable
support and [] maintain regular contact with the child, including providing
normal supervision.” A.R.S. § 8-531(1); see also Steven M. v. Dep’t of Child
Safety, 254 Ariz. 426, 430, ¶ 12 (App. 2023). The trial evidence supports the
abandonment finding.

¶9 Mother conceded at the termination hearing that she
abandoned her children from August 2023 through April 2024 because of

1 The children’s fathers’ rights were terminated as well, but neither is
a party to this appeal.

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO K.A. and L.A.
Decision of the Court

her substance abuse. As substance abuse is not a “just cause” for failing to
maintain a normal parental relationship, this evidence supports a finding
of abandonment. See B.W., ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶ 24, 572 P.3d at 96 (Just cause
requires “a reasonable and fair justification for not maintaining a normal
parental relationship with the child.”). Mother did not rebut this prima facie
showing.

¶10 Additionally, before her incarceration, Mother saw her
children four times, appearing to be under the influence of substances each
time. From January 2024 onward, Mother only saw her children once, in
September 2024. While incarcerated and in the inpatient program, she did
not provide her children with cards, gifts, letters, or otherwise provide
support, care, or supervision. See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196
Ariz. 246, 251, ¶ 24 (2000) (Incarcerated parents may still provide cards,
gifts, or letters to bond with their child.). And her proffered reasons for not
engaging with her children do not explain why she failed to fully exercise
her parental rights as much as possible under the circumstances. See id. at
250, ¶ 22.

¶11 Mother asks us to reconsider and reweigh the trial evidence
in a light more favorable to her. That is outside the scope of our review.
Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 151, ¶ 18 (We do not reweigh evidence on appeal.).

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

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

4