In Re Dependency as to L.G.

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 DEPENDENCY AS TO L.G.

No. 1 CA-JV 26-0098
FILED 8-11-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD45335
The Honorable Glenn Allen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert D. Rosanelli, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellant Father

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

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B E C K E, Judge:

¶1 Father appeals the superior court’s order finding his child
L.G. dependent as to him. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO L.G.
Decision of the Court

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Mother adopted L.G., who has special needs,
when she was around two years old. After her adoption, L.G. lived with
Father, Mother, and a sibling in Florida.

¶3 When L.G. was 5 years old, Florida police learned of
concerning text messages that Mother had sent regarding possible sexual
abuse of L.G. by Father. In May 2023, after a police investigation including
a forensic interview with L.G., Father was arrested and charged with sexual
battery on a child less than 12.

¶4 Mother then moved to Arizona with L.G. Because L.G.’s age
and special needs prevented her from testifying, in October 2024, the
Florida State Attorney’s Office dismissed the charges. Father was then
released from custody and did not travel to Arizona or see L.G. after his
release.

¶5 In September 2025, Mother passed away and DCS took L.G.
into custody.

¶6 DCS filed a dependency petition in October 2025, alleging that
L.G. was dependent as to Father on abuse or neglect grounds due to the
sexual battery charge in Florida. A trial was held over three days, and
testimony was taken from: the DCS investigator, the case aide, the
psychologist, the DCS ongoing specialist, L.G.’s aunt, L.G’s uncle, and
Father.

¶7 The DCS investigator testified that she reviewed a Florida
forensic interview of L.G. and recalled the disclosures that L.G. made
during that interview. Father cross-examined the DCS investigator on
L.G.’s statement in October 2025 that she had not been inappropriately
touched. Father asked about how L.G.’s diagnoses and age could have
impacted her answers.

¶8 DCS and Father offered twenty-one exhibits, which had been
disclosed pretrial without objection. Each of the exhibits was admitted,
including a Florida police report. During trial, Father objected to the report
because DCS was not calling a custodian of records to lay foundation. The
court admitted it, however, over Father’s objection.

2

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO L.G.
Decision of the Court

¶9 The superior court adjudicated L.G. dependent, finding that
“[w]hile [F]ather vehemently denies any allegations and has not been
convicted of any crime, the Court finds by a preponderance of evidence that
the child suffered sexual abuse by [F]ather.”

¶10 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§
8-235(A), 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶11 Father argues that the superior court erred in admitting the
Florida police report. He also argues that the superior court erred in
admitting L.G.’s statements during the forensic interview, whether through
testimony or other exhibits. He argues that the exhibits and testimony
should not have been admitted due to A.R.S. § 8-237, which states:

The out-of-court statements or nonverbal conduct of a minor
regarding acts of abuse or neglect perpetrated on the minor
are admissible for all purposes in any adoption, dependency,
termination of parental rights or guardianship proceeding
under this title if the time, content and circumstances of such
a statement or nonverbal conduct provide sufficient
indication of its reliability.

Father argues that nothing in the record indicated that the time, content,
and circumstances of L.G.’s forensic interview statement provided a
sufficient indication of its reliability.

¶12 We review a dependency adjudication for an abuse of
discretion, “deferring to the [superior] court’s ability to weigh and analyze
the evidence.” Shella H. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 47, 50, ¶ 13 (App.
2016). “We will only disturb a dependency adjudication if no reasonable
evidence supports it.” Id.

I. Father Waived the Issue of the Admission of L.G.’s Forensic
Interview.

¶13 If a party objects to the admission of an exhibit listed in a
pretrial disclosure, they “must file a notice of objection stating the specific
grounds for each objection . . . . A party waives specific objections or
grounds not identified in the notice of objection.” Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.
315(d)(1)(E).

3

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO L.G.
Decision of the Court

¶14 Here, DCS timely filed its initial disclosure statement, which
included all exhibits admitted at trial. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 315(d)(1)
(“[T]he parties must file pretrial disclosure statements containing the
following information no later than 30 days prior to the contested
adjudication . . . .”). Father did not file a written notice of objection to any
of DCS’s disclosures, so his objections are waived. Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.
315(d)(1)(E); Alice M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz. 70, 72–73, ¶¶ 9–11
(App. 2015) (holding an objection was precluded when a written notice of
objection was not filed).

¶15 Regarding the admission of testimony, Father did not object
at trial when the DCS investigator, the first witness called, testified to her
understanding of L.G.’s forensic interview disclosures. The DCS
investigator testified in detail about the disclosure. Father’s failure to object
results in the waiver of his argument on appeal. Dillig v. Fisher, 142 Ariz. 47,
51 (App. 1984).

II. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Admitting the Forensic
Interview Disclosures.

¶16 Father argues that despite waiver of his objections, the
admission of the forensic interview disclosures was fundamental,
prejudicial error. See Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 89, 94, ¶
22 (App. 2005) (if no objection was made, we review for fundamental error).

¶17 The superior court has “broad discretion in admitting or
excluding evidence, and we will not disturb its decision absent a clear abuse
of its discretion and resulting prejudice.” Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sec., 210 Ariz. 77, 82–83, ¶ 19 (App. 2005). When determining whether error
was fundamental, prejudicial error, we first must determine whether trial
error exists. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 142, ¶ 21 (2018). Only if error
exists must we determine if it was fundamental. See id.

¶18 Father contends that Florida’s dismissal of the charges
supports that the forensic interview disclosures did not have a sufficient
indication of reliability as required by A.R.S. § 8-237. However, a criminal
case and a dependency adjudication have different burdens of proof. A
criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, In re Winship, 397
U.S. 358, 364 (1970), while a dependency adjudication must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence, Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 237 Ariz.
484, 490, ¶ 23 (App. 2015). Thus, the quantum of evidence necessary to
prove a dependency adjudication is different from what is needed to prove
a criminal case. Additionally, the superior court has broad discretion in

4

IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO L.G.
Decision of the Court

admitting evidence, Lashonda M., 210 Ariz. at 82–83, ¶ 19, and is not bound
by a determination of the Florida State Attorney’s Office.

¶19 Parents may “challenge and test the reliability of statements”
through the Arizona Rules of Evidence, such as admission of the declarant’s
inconsistent statements or conduct, Ariz. R. Evid. 806; Dep’t of Child Safety
v. Beene, 235 Ariz. 300, 307, ¶ 17 (App. 2014). “Such efforts can take various
forms such as contrary testimony as well as cross-examination of other
witnesses about statements attributed to the children, including authors of
documents containing such statements.” Id.

¶20 Father did that here by cross-examining the DCS investigator
on L.G.’s statement, two years after her forensic interview, that she was not
touched inappropriately. The superior court was within its discretion to
admit the forensic interview disclosures despite the inconsistent statement,
Lashonda M., 210 Ariz. at 82–83, ¶ 19, and we will not reweigh the evidence
on appeal. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App.
2002). Father fails to show error, fundamental or otherwise.

CONCLUSION

¶21 The superior court did not err in admitting the Florida police
report or in admitting testimony regarding L.G.’s disclosures during a
forensic interview. We affirm.

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

5