Background
In October 2020, the Arizona Department of Child Safety filed a dependency petition against Father (Jesus Macias Jr.) alleging neglect, substance abuse, and inability to provide proper parental care for five children. Paternity was established for four children, but not for G.O., for whom a John Doe father was named. Following Father’s no-contest plea in August 2021, all five children were found dependent, and DCS began providing reunification services.
In March 2023, Father was sentenced to three years in prison on felony convictions. The trial court ordered DCS to facilitate video visits and later in-person visits between Father and the children. Father’s incarceration was complicated by fourteen facility transfers between March 2023 and November 2025, which disrupted visitation efforts. In June 2025, the court changed the case plan from reunification to severance and adoption based on substance abuse, length of felony sentence, and time in care.
During the two-day severance adjudication hearing in October 2025, DCS stated it could not proceed with termination as to G.O. until paternity was established and requested the court preserve testimony as to that child. In December 2025, after DCS reported paternity testing results, the trial court terminated Father’s rights to all five children without first requiring an amended dependency petition or motion to terminate as to G.O.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the termination of parental rights to four children (P.M., A.M., R.M., and M.M.). The court found clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory grounds for termination and that termination was in the children’s best interests. The court concluded DCS made diligent efforts to provide reunification services, including arranging visitation despite Father’s incarceration, and that sporadic visits resulted from Father’s conduct in custody and Department of Corrections communication issues, not DCS failure.
However, the court reversed and remanded the termination order as to G.O., finding that the trial court erred in terminating Father’s parental rights without first establishing paternity through proper procedural means. Although paternity testing established Father as G.O.’s biological father in December 2025, that paternity was never properly asserted in an amended dependency petition and amended motion to terminate before the termination ruling. The court held that paternity must be established before a parent can be found responsible for dependency or before parental rights can be terminated, and the parties must have an opportunity to address whether paternity has been proven.
Key Takeaways
- Paternity must be formally established before a court can make dependency findings and terminate parental rights—it is not sufficient to rely on later DNA testing results without amending the petition.
- When paternity is initially unestablished but later proven, DCS must file amended dependency and termination motions to comply with procedural requirements and give the parent notice and opportunity to be heard.
- Although services for incarcerated parents may be more limited, DCS must make reasonable efforts to provide reunification services, including visitation, if requested and if safe.
- Visitation disruptions caused by DOC facility transfers and the incarcerated parent’s own conduct in custody do not constitute DCS failure to provide reunification services.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes a critical procedural safeguard in Arizona parental termination cases: paternity establishment is not a ministerial matter to be resolved after the fact. Instead, it is a foundational prerequisite that must be addressed through proper pleadings before the court can enter dependency or termination orders. Even where the underlying facts strongly support termination—here, Father’s felony conviction, substance abuse, and lack of meaningful participation in services—procedural defects in establishing paternity require reversal and remand.
The ruling also provides important guidance for incarcerated parents’ rights. While acknowledging that services for imprisoned parents are necessarily limited, the court affirmed that DCS has an obligation to make reasonable efforts to facilitate parent-child contact and that external obstacles (DOC facility transfers, communication failures) do not excuse DCS of this duty unless they render reunification impossible. However, the parent’s own conduct and choices in custody may legitimately impact the availability of visitation without constituting DCS negligence.