Background
L.S. entered Department of Child Safety custody in March 2022 after allegations that her mother engaged in criminal activity while the child was present. The superior court later found L.S. dependent as to Father based on his failure to provide proper parental care and establish paternity. Father did not complete paternity testing until 2024, and his paternity was not established until early 2025.
Father’s visitation was inconsistent, and he did not participate in substance-abuse treatment or other reunification services apart from visitation. He tested positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine in March 2022, refused subsequent testing, and once brought a vial containing fentanyl to a visit. In July 2025, DCS sought termination on chronic substance-abuse and nine-month out-of-home-placement grounds. After a January 2026 hearing, the superior court terminated Father’s rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Father did not challenge the superior court’s findings that DCS proved the statutory grounds for termination, so he waived those issues on appeal. His sole argument was that DCS had not shown termination was in L.S.’s best interests.
Reasonable evidence supported the best-interests finding, the court held. Testimony showed that L.S. was thriving in her placement, her needs were being met, and adoption would provide permanency and stability. The court declined Father’s invitation to reweigh evidence concerning his relationship with L.S. and injuries she had sustained in placement. It also rejected his assertion that expert testimony was required to balance adoption’s immediate benefits against possible long-term harm from termination; neither A.R.S. § 8-533 nor Arizona termination law imposes that requirement.
Key Takeaways
- A parent who does not challenge statutory termination grounds on appeal waives those challenges.
- Evidence that adoption will provide a child stability and security can support a best-interests finding.
- Expert testimony is not required to establish best interests in a parental-rights termination case.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that appellate review of a best-interests determination is deferential: the court will not reweigh conflicting evidence or reassess witness credibility when reasonable evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings.
It also confirms that Arizona’s termination statute does not require expert proof of the relative psychological effects of severance where the record otherwise supports that adoption will benefit the child through permanency and stability.