Background
A.G. was born in 2018. Her parents divorced in 2021, the year father was convicted of aggravated assault against mother and sentenced to one year in prison. Mother obtained a protective order against father in 2023, but it did not then include A.G. Father nevertheless stopped contact and visitation with A.G. In 2025, father was convicted of aggravated harassment against mother, and mother renewed the protective order to include A.G.
After father’s 2025 incarceration, mother petitioned to terminate his parental rights on abandonment, neglect or abuse, and length-of-incarceration grounds. Father testified that he had not paid court-ordered child support after June 2023, had not seen A.G. since 2023, sent three letters, and gave her a skateboard. He also took parenting and other classes while incarcerated. The superior court terminated his rights, finding abandonment and that termination served A.G.’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Although father’s self-represented opening brief did not comply with appellate briefing rules and raised no supported legal issue, the court exercised its discretion to review the merits. It also declined to treat mother’s failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error because father raised no debatable question.
Reasonable evidence supported the abandonment finding by clear and convincing evidence. Father did not provide reasonable support, maintain regular contact, exercise parenting time from June 2023 until his January 2025 arrest, or make more than minimal efforts to communicate with A.G. His incarceration classes did not cure the earlier absence. The court further upheld the best-interests finding based on the lack of a meaningful parent-child relationship, father’s pattern of violent and erratic conduct, and A.G.’s need for safety and stability. Because abandonment alone supported termination, the court did not address the other grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Abandonment turns on a parent’s conduct, including support, contact, and efforts to maintain a normal parental relationship.
- A parent may need to pursue available means of contact, such as supervised or third-party arrangements, even when a protective order limits direct contact with the other parent.
- Once one statutory termination ground is supported by clear and convincing evidence, an appellate court need not review alternative grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Arizona appellate courts give to juvenile-court credibility and fact findings in severance cases. It also shows that late rehabilitative efforts may be insufficient where a parent has not persistently acted to preserve the relationship and the child’s safety and stability favor termination.