In Re Term of Parental Rights as to N.R.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0051
FILED 12-05-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JS22392
The Honorable Suzanne E. Cohen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix
By Jamie R. Heller
Counsel for Appellant

Burguan Law PLLC, Phoenix
By Brian Strickman
Counsel for Appellee N.R.

Tomasa R., Phoenix
Appellee
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.R.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey
joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Lynda R. (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order
terminating her parental rights to her child, N.R. (“Child”). We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother is the biological parent of Child, born in November
2016.1 Mother was convicted in Texas on a drug-related offense and
sentenced to prison. Before leaving to serve her sentence in early 2018,
Mother arranged for Child to live with Child’s maternal grandmother,
Tomasa R. (“Grandmother”). Child was 18 months old. Mother also
appointed Grandmother as Child’s legal guardian.

¶3 After Mother was released from prison, she moved frequently
over the next seven years. She lived in Mexico, Yuma and Phoenix.
Grandmother gave Child a stable home during this period. Grandmother
ensured Child went to school. Mother rarely visited. And when she did,
she was often intoxicated and had to be removed. Mother provided no
financial support for Child aside from an occasional gift.

¶4 Mother’s substance abuse continued. She was accused of
fleeing the scene of a car accident while intoxicated in 2021. After she gave
birth to a second child in 2023, the hospital contacted the Department of
Child Safety because the child tested positive for THC. In that separate
dependency, Mother was given a safety plan that required substance abuse
treatment and drug testing. She did not complete her first three referrals
for substance abuse treatment. She rarely showed up for her scheduled
drug tests. And when she did, she tested positive 31 times for THC, 20
times for alcohol and once each for cocaine, fentanyl and amphetamines.

1 Father’s parental rights were also terminated by the superior court
for failing to file notice of claim of paternity. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(6).

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.R.
Decision of the Court

¶5 In July 2024, after years of waiting, Grandmother petitioned
the superior court to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Grandmother
intended to adopt Child. Mother contested the petition, insisting she was
now sober and again in substance abuse treatment.

¶6 The superior court held a contested hearing in April 2025 at
which both Mother and Grandmother testified. Grandmother testified that
Mother had little or no relationship with Child, rarely asked to see Child
and months would pass without any contact. When Mother did visit,
according to Grandmother, Mother was intoxicated and wanted money, not
time with Child.

¶7 Mother told a different story. She testified that she tried to
visit Child every weekend, but Grandmother prevented contact. Mother
said she had room for Child in a two-bedroom apartment she shared with
her partner. She claimed she had been sober since early 2025, but she
admitted she had been intoxicated when she visited Grandmother’s house
just a week and a half before the hearing.

¶8 After the contested hearing, the superior court terminated
Mother’s parental rights on two grounds: substance abuse and
abandonment. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1), (3). The court found Grandmother
credible and Mother not credible. It found that Mother’s substance abuse
started as early as 2018, that Mother “cannot parent when she is
intoxicated” and her condition will likely continue because “she has yet to
complete treatment.” It discounted recent efforts at sobriety and treatment
as “fall[ing] in the ‘too little too late’ category.” The court also found
“Mother failed to undertake any of the myriad of responsibilities associated
with parenting” and “failed to maintain regular contact with [Child] or
provide[] normal supervision in 7 years.” Last, the court found termination
was in Child’s best interests because it would allow Grandmother to adopt
Child, provide permanency and avoid the detrimental effects of Mother’s
continuing substance abuse.

¶9 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. Ariz. Const.
art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶10 Even though Grandmother failed to file an answering brief,
we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of Mother’s arguments
because a child’s best interests are at stake. See Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270,
273, ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trumps the discretionary
doctrine of waiver).

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.R.
Decision of the Court

¶11 Mother appeals the superior court’s findings that (1) she had
a history of chronic substance abuse, which will continue for a prolonged
period, (2) she has abandoned Child and (3) termination is in Child’s best
interests.

¶12 To terminate parental rights, the superior court must find one
statutory ground for termination under § 8-533(B) by clear and convincing
evidence, and that termination is in the child’s best interests by a
preponderance of the evidence. Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245 Ariz.
146, 149–50, ¶ 8 (2018). We will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly
erroneous, accepting the superior court’s findings of fact unless
unsupported by reasonable evidence. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.,
203 Ariz. 278, 280, ¶ 4 (App. 2002).

I. Chronic Substance Abuse.

¶13 To terminate based on chronic substance abuse, Grandmother
must offer clear and convincing evidence that (1) Mother had a history of
substance abuse, (2) she cannot discharge parental responsibilities because
of that chronic substance abuse and (3) there are reasonable grounds to
believe the condition will continue for a prolonged and indeterminate
period. See Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 224 Ariz. 373, 377, ¶ 15
(App. 2010).

¶14 The superior court had ample evidence to terminate Mother’s
parental rights on substance abuse grounds. Mother had struggled with
substance abuse since at least 2018. She failed dozens of drug tests
(including four tests conducted before the contested hearing), had not
completed three referrals to drug treatment programs and had two criminal
incidents involving substance abuse. See id. at 379, ¶ 29 (parent had not
overcome dependence on drugs where his abuse continued “despite
knowing the loss of his children was imminent”). When she did interact
with Child, she was intoxicated, inappropriate and had to be removed.

¶15 Mother points to her recent attempts at treatment and
sobriety, but the superior court found her not credible, pointing to drug
tests before the hearing and long history of substance abuse and relapse.
See id. (Parent’s “temporary abstinence from drugs and alcohol does not
outweigh [a] significant history of abuse or [a] consistent inability to
abstain.”). We discern no error.

¶16 Because we affirm on the statutory ground of chronic
substance abuse, we need not reach the alternative ground for termination.

4
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.R.
Decision of the Court

See Jesus M., 203 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 3 (court may affirm if reasonable evidence
supports at least one termination ground).

II. Best Interests.

¶17 Termination is in a child’s best interests if that child “would
derive an affirmative benefit from termination or incur a detriment by
continuing in the relationship.” Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz.
332, 334, ¶ 6 (App. 2004). A child’s prospective adoption is evidence of a
benefit to support a best interests finding. Aleise H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety,
245 Ariz. 569, 572, ¶ 9 (App. 2018).

¶18 Here, the superior court found Child is adoptable, wants to
be adopted and will be adopted by Grandmother. The court also found
termination would provide Child with stability and permanence, while
avoiding the detrimental effects of Mother’s substance abuse. Each finding
is supported by reasonable evidence and would independently support
finding termination is in Child’s best interests. Id. at ¶ 10.

¶19 Mother argues the superior court disregarded evidence that
termination would not be in Child’s best interests, but the court found
Mother was not credible and her substance abuse was likely to continue for
a prolonged period. Reasonable evidence supports the court’s findings,
and we do not reweigh the evidence on review. See Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of
Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282, 286–87, ¶ 16 (App. 2016).

CONCLUSION

¶20 We affirm.

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

5