Background
Jenive S. (“Mother”) and Devin A. (“Father”) share a daughter, J.S., born in February 2020. The couple, who never married, had an unstable relationship that ended in June 2022 after a physical altercation leading to Father’s arrest — charges that were later dropped. The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) took temporary custody of J.S. following the incident. Both parents completed reunification services by August 2023, and J.S. was returned to Father’s primary custody.
Over the following year, Mother made repeated, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against Father, contacting DCS, Adult Protective Services, and police on a weekly or more frequent basis. Eight investigations were conducted; all were closed without findings. In November 2023, Mother withheld J.S. from Father and again alleged abuse. Father obtained a warrant to retrieve the child, and the superior court revoked Mother’s parenting time, permitting only supervised visitation. Mother neither arranged visits nor made contact with J.S. for the next 19 months. She attributed this to a belief — unsupported by the court’s order — that Father was responsible for arranging the visits.
Mother moved to enforce her visitation rights in February 2025. Father shortly thereafter petitioned to terminate her parental rights on grounds of neglect and abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) and (2). Following an evidentiary hearing, the Maricopa County Superior Court terminated Mother’s parental rights on the abandonment ground, denied the neglect claim, and found termination to be in J.S.’s best interests. Mother timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the termination order in full. On the abandonment ground, the court held that the record amply supported the juvenile court’s findings. Under A.R.S. § 8-531(1), a parent’s failure to maintain a normal parental relationship for six months constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment, and Mother’s 19-month gap in contact far exceeded that threshold. The court reiterated the established rule that abandonment is measured by conduct, not subjective intent, rejecting Mother’s argument that her pre-revocation parenting history negated the finding. It also held that the two or three visits Mother arranged after Father filed his petition did not rebut the presumption of abandonment, as post-petition efforts to reestablish a relationship are legally insufficient for that purpose.
On best interests, the court affirmed the juvenile court’s finding that J.S. would derive an affirmative benefit from termination. Father’s new wife wished to adopt J.S., J.S. herself wanted to proceed with the adoption, and the arrangement would provide permanency and stability. In addition, the juvenile court credited Father’s testimony that J.S. was suffering emotionally from Mother’s prolonged absence. The appellate court noted that either rationale independently supported the best-interests determination. It declined Mother’s invitation to reweigh the evidence, as that is not the appellate court’s role.
Father did not file an answering brief, which the court acknowledged could be treated as a concession of error; however, because a child’s best interests were at stake, the court elected to decide the appeal on the merits.
Key Takeaways
- Under Arizona law, a parent’s failure to maintain a normal parental relationship for six months is prima facie evidence of abandonment; Mother’s 19-month absence of contact was more than sufficient to meet that standard.
- Abandonment is assessed by the parent’s objective conduct, not subjective intent — Mother’s stated belief that she had not intentionally abandoned J.S. was legally irrelevant.
- Post-petition attempts to reestablish contact do not rebut a presumption of abandonment already established by prior inaction.
- A prospective adoption by a stepparent, combined with evidence that a child is emotionally harmed by the absent parent’s failure to engage, can independently support a best-interests finding favoring termination.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Arizona’s conduct-focused approach to parental abandonment: courts will not credit a parent’s stated good intentions or pre-gap parenting history when the parent has failed, without just cause, to maintain meaningful contact for an extended period. Attorneys representing parents in termination proceedings should counsel clients that even court-ordered supervised visitation creates an affirmative obligation to arrange and attend visits — the burden does not fall on the other parent or the court system.
The case also underscores that stepparent adoption plans can carry significant weight in best-interests analyses. Where a stable, willing adoptive placement exists within the existing household and a child is demonstrably suffering from an absent parent’s disengagement, Arizona courts are likely to find that the balance favors termination and the permanency that adoption provides.