Background
Jayce, a child with severe, nonverbal autism, entered state care in 2021 after he was found wandering outside alone and unclothed. His mother, Gina Carter, had no contact with him from June 2021 until September 2024. During that period, the Department of Child Safety repeatedly attempted to locate her through addresses, telephone calls, social media, and ultimately service by publication.
After reconnecting with DCS, Mother completed parenting classes and participated successfully in several visits. Her reunification efforts were hindered by transportation problems, frequent DCS case-manager turnover, scheduling failures, a mistakenly closed service referral, and missed visits attributable to the foster parent. Mother nevertheless again became difficult to reach for extended periods. The juvenile court terminated her rights in January 2026 on grounds of abandonment and 15 months’ out-of-home placement, finding termination in Jayce’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Although Mother challenged only the 15-month out-of-home-placement ground, the court exercised its discretion to review the otherwise unchallenged abandonment finding because any error concerning the alternative ground would not affect the judgment if abandonment was properly established. Reasonable evidence supported abandonment: Mother went approximately 30 months without seeing Jayce and made no meaningful effort during that period to provide support, communicate directly with him, confirm his well-being, or vigorously assert her parental rights.
The court recognized that Mother faced substantial barriers and that DCS, its service provider, and the foster parent made troubling mistakes. Those failures, however, did not supply just cause for Mother’s prolonged lack of support and regular contact. Her later participation in some services and visits did not undo the abandonment that had already occurred.
The record also supported the best-interests finding. Evidence showed that Jayce was thriving in foster care, improving in behavior and life skills, and adoptable despite his disability. His maternal aunt, who had experience with children with special needs, was a potential adoptive placement. The juvenile court was entitled to conclude that termination would benefit Jayce by permitting adoption to proceed, notwithstanding evidence of a bond between Mother and Jayce.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s objective conduct, rather than her stated intentions, determines whether she abandoned a child.
- Agency mistakes and barriers to visitation do not establish just cause when the parent still fails for an extended period to support the child, maintain contact, or vigorously assert parental rights.
- Later reunification efforts do not erase a completed abandonment, though consistent post-abandonment conduct may be relevant to the child’s best interests in another case.
- Evidence that a child is adoptable, thriving in care, and has a potential adoptive placement can support a finding that termination serves the child’s best interests.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that serious deficiencies in DCS’s administration of reunification services do not necessarily defeat termination based on abandonment. Courts will separately assess whether those deficiencies actually justified the parent’s failure to maintain a normal parental relationship.
It also underscores the distinction between the statutory ground for termination and the best-interests inquiry: subsequent parental progress may not negate an earlier abandonment, but under appropriate facts it may still bear on whether severance presently benefits the child. The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).