In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.P.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0090
FILED 12-09-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD32730
The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David W. Bell Attorney at Law, Mesa
By David W. Bell
Counsel for Appellant Father Antonio S.

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

Arizona Law Practice LLC, Phoenix
By Amie S. Clarke
Counsel for Appellee Child L.P.
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.P.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Antonio S. (“Father”) appeals the juvenile court’s order
terminating his parental rights to L.P. For the following reasons, this Court
affirms the termination order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Selma P. (“Mother”)1 are the biological parents of
L.P., born in April 2016. Both Mother and Father were incarcerated at the
time of L.P.’s birth. The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) took custody
of L.P., placed her with L.P.’s maternal aunt, and filed a dependency
petition. After Father’s release from prison, he was awarded temporary
custody of L.P.

¶3 Father was arrested again in 2022. On December 13, 2022,
L.P.’s maternal aunt filed a private dependency petition for L.P. DCS
subsequently substituted as petitioner in the dependency.

¶4 In October 2023, Father was sentenced to imprisonment for
15.75 years with a projected release in June 2038. Father had virtual visits
with L.P. from prison for 30 minutes a week from February to December
2024. In May 2024, DCS moved to terminate Father’s parental rights to L.P.
on the length-of-sentence ground set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4). The
juvenile court held a two-day severance hearing in March and April 2025.

¶5 On June 9, 2025, the juvenile court terminated Father’s
parental rights. Father timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under
Article VI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A) and
12-2101(A)(1).

1 Mother is not a party to this appeal. The juvenile court terminated her

parental rights at the same time as Father’s, but she did not appeal from
that order.

2
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.P.
Decision of the Court

DISCUSSION

¶6 Father argues the juvenile court erred in finding Father’s
prison sentence rendered him unable to have a meaningful relationship
with his child. Specifically, he argues the juvenile court incorrectly applied
the law with respect to a factor for determining whether the length of the
parent’s sentence will deprive the child of a normal home—the degree to
which the relationship can be continued and nurtured during incarceration.

¶7 DCS contends the juvenile court correctly applied the law
with respect to that factor. In the alternative, DCS argues the unchallenged
findings on the other relevant factors are sufficient to support the court’s
conclusion that Father’s sentence would deprive L.P. of a normal home.

¶8 When reviewing a termination order, this Court accepts the
juvenile court’s factual findings “if reasonable evidence and inferences
support them.” Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 478 ¶ 30
(2023). This Court “will affirm a termination order 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).
“A court abuses its discretion by misapplying the law.” Id. This Court views
the record “in the light most favorable to upholding the juvenile court’s
findings.” Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 479 ¶ 32.

¶9 All parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the custody
of their children. Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 284 ¶ 24 (2005).
However, a parent’s right to custody of their child is not absolute. Michael
J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 248 ¶ 12 (2000). “The juvenile
court conducts a two-step inquiry in determining whether to terminate the
parent-child relationship.” Timothy B., 252 Ariz. at 473 ¶ 13. “First, the court
must decide whether clear and convincing evidence demonstrates at least
one ground listed in § 8-533(B).” Id. “Second, assuming a § 8-533(B) ground
exists, the court must decide whether a preponderance of evidence
supports a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.” Id.

¶10 A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4) authorizes termination when “the parent
is deprived of his civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony” and “the
sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a
normal home for a period of years.” Factors the juvenile court should
consider include:

(1) the length and strength of any parent-child
relationship existing when incarceration begins,
(2) the degree to which the parent-child

3
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.P.
Decision of the Court

relationship can be continued and nurtured
during the incarceration, (3) the age of the child
and the relationship between the child’s age and
the likelihood that incarceration will deprive
the child of a normal home, (4) the length of the
sentence, (5) the availability of another parent to
provide a normal home life, and (6) the effect of
the deprivation of a parental presence on the
child at issue. After considering those and other
relevant factors, the trial court can determine
whether the sentence is of such a length as to
deprive a child of a normal home for a period of
years.

Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251-52 ¶ 29. Under the fifth factor, “the court should
consider the availability of a permanent guardian to provide a normal home
life if another parent is unavailable.” Timothy B., 252 Ariz. at 477 ¶ 27.

¶11 On appeal, Father argues only that the court erred in applying
the second factor—the degree to which the parent-child relationship can be
continued and nurtured during the incarceration. In considering this factor,
the juvenile court found:

Father is only able to have 30-minute visits, once
per week, with his child. That is entirely
insufficient to establish and maintain a normal
parent-child relationship.

Father argues the court’s finding is inconsistent with Timothy B., which held
that incarceration of a parent does not create a presumption that the parent-
child relationship should be terminated. He argues the standard applied by
the juvenile court would mean “every single termination action involving
a parent incarcerated for at least two years will have an unfavorable result.”

¶12 This Court disagrees. The juvenile court did not make a
presumption that incarceration resulted in termination. Rather, it found the
Father’s limited visitation time was insufficient given the lack of a strong
existing relationship and the Father’s lengthy incarceration. The court went
through each and every one of the Michael J. factors, basing its conclusion
that L.P. would be deprived of a normal home on the following facts: (1)
Father did not have a strong relationship with L.P. at the time he was
incarcerated, (2) L.P. will be twenty-two at the time of Father’s projected
release, and (3) maternal aunt wanted to adopt L.P. and L.P. wanted to be

4
 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.P.
Decision of the Court

adopted. In light of these findings, which Father does not dispute, the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding Father’s incarceration
deprived L.P. of a normal home for a period of years.

CONCLUSION

¶13 Father has not shown that the juvenile court’s factual findings
are not supported by reasonable evidence and inferences. Nor has he
shown that the court’s legal conclusions regarding statutory grounds for
termination are clearly erroneous. Thus, this Court affirms the termination
order. See Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 478-79 ¶¶ 30-31.

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

5