In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.J.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0087
FILED 02-02-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County
No. S0900JD202000037
The Honorable Michala M. Ruechel, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Charles J., Clarksville, AR
Appellant

Booth Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler
By Jennifer Booth
Advisory Counsel for Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Laura J. Huff
Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety

Belt Law Firm PLC, Scottsdale
By John C. Belt
Counsel for Appellee Child
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.J.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

C A T L E T T, Judge:

¶1 Charles J. (“Father”) appeals an order terminating his
parental rights as to D.J. (“Child”). Counsel for Father notified us that, after
reviewing the record, she found no non-frivolous issues to raise. Father
filed a pro se brief. Because the record supports the juvenile court’s
termination order, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Child was born in March 2016, while Father was incarcerated
for a drug-related probation violation. At birth, Child was immediately
placed in foster care with her current placement, her godparents, with
whom she spent the first few months of life. Child then lived with both her
biological parents for several years.

¶3 In December 2020, the Arizona Department of Child Safety
(“the Department”) took custody of Child on an emergency basis. The
Department received reports Child was being neglected, and when it took
custody, she had matted hair and lice. The Department also learned that
Father had exposed Child to domestic abuse in the home and that both
parents used drugs.

¶4 Three days after taking custody, the Department petitioned
for dependency. Because the parties previously resided in Arkansas, the
Arizona juvenile court held a hearing under the Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). The court found that the
Division of Family Services of Arkansas had previously opened an
investigation, but no other state court had issued orders and “due to the
parties[‘] relocation and the parties[‘] location at the time of removal,”
Arizona had jurisdiction. Father did not object. In April 2021, the court
found Child dependent as to Father because he exposed Child to domestic
abuse in the home and abused substances.

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.J.
Decision of the Court

¶5 Since December 2020, Child has been in an out-of-home
placement. In December 2024, the Department moved to terminate Father’s
parental rights. It alleged Father chronically abused drugs and there were
reasonable grounds to believe the condition would continue for a
prolonged period. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). The Department also alleged
Child had been in an out-of-home placement for more than fifteen months
and there was a substantial likelihood Father was incapable of exercising
parental care and control in the near future. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8).

¶6 At the termination hearing, the Department’s case manager
testified that Child entered custody in December 2020 because of domestic
violence and substance abuse within the home. He testified about a police
report from an April 2023 arrest, in which Father identified himself to
officers as a meth user. He further testified that, during a team decision
making meeting between Father and the Department, Father
acknowledged using methamphetamine. He stated that Father had not
provided drug test results to the Department since his 2023 arrest. The case
manager detailed substance abuse services the Department offered to
Father, and Father’s failure to participate. The case manager acknowledged
Father engaged in services in 2021 but the subsequent drug-arrest and lack
of treatment or drug testing left him unconvinced of Father’s sobriety.

¶7 The case manager testified that Child’s fear of Father, and
Father’s substance abuse and criminal involvement prevented Child from
returning to Father. He did not think Father had remedied those
circumstances. He detailed reunification services offered to Father such as
phone contact with Child, parenting and anger management classes, and
other counseling, but stated that Father had not engaged in those services
since 2021. The case manager explained that Father had an outstanding
warrant which would be a barrier to reunification because it would cause
instability and uncertainty for Child, and that Father had a separate 2023
drug charge pending. Finally, he opined that Father would be unable to
exercise proper and effective parental control in the near future.

¶8 Child’s therapist testified that, based on her work with Child,
reunification with Father would be difficult. She testified that Child desired
permanence with her current placement. Specifically, Child desired
adoption, did not want to resume contact with Father, and was doing much
better in school and emotionally.

¶9 Child’s godmother and current placement testified that she
and her husband first met Child when she was a newborn after they picked
her up at the hospital and served as her foster parents for several months.

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.J.
Decision of the Court

She testified that her family maintained a relationship with Child even after
Child returned to her parents in late 2016. She testified that, after Child
returned to her godparents, Child had phone calls with Father, but those
calls distressed Child. Starting in mid-November 2023, Child expressed a
desire not to speak with Father at all. Father, since then, has not consistently
attempted to contact Child.

¶10 Godmother also testified that Child has had emotional
problems, especially related to phone calls with Father and court dates, but
that she has improved greatly since being placed with her godparents. She
testified that she and her husband want to adopt Child.

¶11 Child’s attorney informed the court that he spoke with Child
and explained the implications of termination and adoption. He stated that
Child supports termination and wishes to be adopted by her godparents.

¶12 Father claimed he did not receive much communication from
the Department, but that he completed two parenting classes, an anger
management class, and drug counseling. He admitted to pleading guilty to
a 2023 drug charge and currently being on probation, as well as having an
outstanding warrant in Michigan, requiring him to serve 35 days in jail. He
claimed he attempted to turn himself in “for a period of six months,” but
due to Covid, the jail would not take him. He further testified that, because
the Michigan warrant is non-extraditable, there is no risk of arrest in
Arkansas where he lives. He admitted he knew that clearing the warrant
was a pre-condition to Child returning to him.

¶13 Father testified he did not currently have a substance abuse
problem and that he had changed for the better since Child was taken into
custody. Father said that, through counseling, anger management classes,
and Bible study, he had learned a lot, including about how to cope with his
emotions. He testified he had only used methamphetamine “a few times in
[his] life.” He blamed his 2023 methamphetamine possession charge on a
family member.

¶14 When asked why it would be in Child’s best interests to live
with him, Father focused on his parental rights, claiming they had been
“robbed” from him. He admitted that Child’s current placement is good
for her. Father denied responsibility for Child being out of his custody.

¶15 The juvenile court found the Department failed to meet its
burden to show termination was justified based on Father’s prolonged drug
use. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(3). The court did however find that the
Department met its burden on the out-of-home placement ground for

4
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.J.
Decision of the Court

termination. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c). The court found that Child had
“been in out of home placement by order [since around] December 16,
2020” which “exceeds fifteen months contemplated by statute.” Father’s
failure to address the Michigan warrant, his continued history of drug use
after losing custody of Child, and his failure to remain law-abiding showed
an inability to remedy the circumstances causing the out-of-home
placement. Given his substance abuse, criminal history, and lack of
progress with offered services during the preceding four years, the court
found it substantially likely that Father would not be able to “exercise
proper and effective parental care and control in the near future.” It based
these findings on the multiple services offered to Father and his lack of
meaningful engagement with them.

¶16 As to best interests, the court found “that there is a plan for
adoption,” and Child’s “current placement is providing [her] with a loving
and nurturing home environment, and she is thriving in their care.” The
court also recounted the therapist’s opinion that a lack of finality was
having negative psychological effects on Child. The court found the
Department proved it would be in Child’s best interests for Father’s
parental rights to be terminated.

¶17 Father timely appealed; we have jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 8-235(A).

DISCUSSION

¶18 Father argues the juvenile court erred in terminating his
parental rights. But Father’s pro se brief does not comply with our rules.
Father does not, among other defects, adequately explain his argument or
cite to the record and legal authority. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. 13(a)(7); Ariz.
R.P. Juv. Ct. 607(b). Father has therefore waived any argument challenging
the termination of his parental rights. See In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64–
65 ¶ 6 (2013); see also Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522 ¶ 8 (App. 2022).

¶19 Still, we have reviewed the full record and conclude it
adequately supports the juvenile court’s factual findings, conclusions of
law, and its ultimate decision to terminate Father’s parental rights. See
Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz 471, 478–79 ¶¶ 30–31 (2023); Adams
v. Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 342 (App. 1984) (recognizing
merits decisions are preferred over dismissal on procedural grounds).

¶20 To terminate parental rights, the juvenile court must find, by
clear and convincing evidence, that at least one statutory ground for
termination exists and, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

5
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO D.J.
Decision of the Court

termination would be in the child’s best interests. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210
Ariz. 279, 284 ¶ 22 (2005). This court affirms termination “unless the
juvenile court abuses its discretion or the court’s findings are not supported
by reasonable evidence.” Timothy B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 252 Ariz. 470,
474 ¶ 14 (2022). We affirm the juvenile court’s legal conclusions about the
statutory ground for termination “unless they are clearly erroneous.”
Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 478–79 ¶ 31.

¶21 The court found the Department proved the fifteen-month
out-of-home placement ground for termination. See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c).
The record supports that finding. Child had been in an out-of-home
placement since December 16, 2020, well exceeding the required fifteen
months. The Department made diligent efforts in providing reunification
services, but Father had neither substantially completed them nor remained
in consistent contact with the Department. Father had persistently failed to
provide drug test results. Father had not addressed an outstanding warrant
and continued to engage in criminal activity and drug use, which most
recently resulted in a 2024 conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
This evidence supports the court’s finding that Father would not soon
remedy the circumstances causing the out-of-home placement.

¶22 The record also supports the court’s best interests finding.
Child’s current placement is providing a stable home environment where
Child has improved emotionally. Child’s therapist predicted that
reunification with Father would be difficult for Child, and Child’s attorney
explained that Child supports termination and wishes to be adopted by her
current placement. Child’s current placement plans to adopt her. This
evidence demonstrates that termination was in Child’s best interests. See
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1, 4 ¶ 12 (2016).

¶23 Considering the juvenile court’s “thorough findings of fact
and sustainable conclusions of law,” we affirm. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of
Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282 ¶ 16 (App. 2022).

CONCLUSION

¶24 We affirm.

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

6