Background
The father and mother had three children together (E.W., D.W., and later K.S.), and the mother had three older children from prior relationships. Between 2017 and 2022, the Department of Child Safety received nine anonymous reports that the father physically abused one of the mother’s older children, Gi.S., with injuries including bruises, swollen lips, and a black eye. In September 2022, when Gi.S. arrived at school with injuries “consistent with being hit with a fist,” the police became involved and the children were removed from the home.
DCS filed a dependency petition alleging that the children were dependent due to the mother’s failure to protect them from abuse and domestic violence in the home. The father was ordered to undergo psychological evaluation and domestic violence classes. However, the father proved resistant to services, reporting at one point during parenting classes that he might go “on a killing spree” over the dependency proceedings. He repeatedly accused DCS of “kidnapping” his children, frightened them during visits by claiming they were being “poisoned,” and refused them basic necessities like water as punishment.
By May 2025, nearly three years after removal, DCS moved to terminate parental rights under the fifteen-months’ out-of-home placement statute. Despite nearly completing a parenting program in August 2025 and beginning counseling in October 2025, the father continued to demonstrate aggressive behavior toward staff and no genuine insight into his conduct or its impact on the children.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights under Arizona’s fifteen-months’ out-of-home placement statute (A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8)(c)), which requires proof by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the child has been in out-of-home placement for 15+ months; (2) DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services; (3) the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances causing removal; and (4) there is substantial likelihood the parent will not be capable of proper parenting in the near future.
The appellate court found all four elements satisfied. While the father claimed he had completed “everything” asked of him, the record showed he was “actively hostile” to DCS’s engagement, failed to complete most recommended services, refused to acknowledge his role in the abuse and neglect, and exhibited no therapeutic progress despite years of opportunity. His behavior during supervised visits—failing to provide adequate food, using punishment to deny water, behaving aggressively toward staff—continued to harm the children, who exhibited aggressive behaviors and emotional distress following visits.
Most significantly, the father accepted no responsibility at trial, denying he had any effect on the children’s behavior and suggesting implausibly that a ten-year-old’s injuries came from his nine-year-old sister. The court found this failure to acknowledge problems, combined with the father’s conviction for assault and ongoing probation, demonstrated he would not be capable of safe parenting in the foreseeable future.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s completion of some services is insufficient if they refuse to engage meaningfully, accept no responsibility, and show no behavioral change or insight into their conduct.
- Active hostility toward child protective services, refusal to acknowledge abuse, and continued harmful behavior during supervised visits all weigh heavily against reunification.
- Courts may terminate rights based on a parent’s unwillingness—not just inability—to remedy circumstances, particularly when years have passed with no genuine progress.
- A child’s need for permanency and stability after years in foster care is a significant factor in determining that termination serves the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Arizona courts will not indefinitely keep children in limbo waiting for a parent to change when that parent demonstrates refusal—rather than mere inability—to address the underlying problems. The father’s case illustrates a critical distinction: merely going through the motions of services (eventually completing a parenting program) while denying responsibility, continuing aggressive behavior, and refusing to engage meaningfully does not satisfy the legal standard for reunification. The court emphasized that “leaving the window of opportunity for remediation open indefinitely is not . . . in the child’s . . . best interests.”
Additionally, the opinion underscores that when a parent’s conduct during supervised visits actively harms children—frightening them, denying them food and water, displaying aggression—courts will act to protect the children’s welfare even when that means terminating rights. The father’s refusal to acknowledge any connection between his behavior and the children’s subsequent aggressive conduct and emotional distress demonstrated the lack of insight necessary for safe parenting. For practitioners, this case demonstrates the importance of developing a robust record of a parent’s engagement (or lack thereof) with services, behavioral changes during visits, and any progress toward addressing the underlying issues that led to removal.