Opinion
No. 1 CA-JV 17-0156
10-17-2017
HOLLY G., Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER S., M.S., Appellees.
COUNSEL Jordan Law L.L.P., Maricopa By Mariam I. Jordan Counsel for Appellant The Stavris Law Firm, Scottsdale By Christopher Stavris Counsel for Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JS518130
The Honorable Veronica W. Brame, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Jordan Law L.L.P., Maricopa
By Mariam I. Jordan
Counsel for Appellant The Stavris Law Firm, Scottsdale
By Christopher Stavris
Counsel for Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined. THUMMA, Chief Judge:
¶1 Holly G. (Mother) challenges the superior court's order denying her petition to terminate the parental rights of Christopher S. (Father) to their 13-year old son M.S. Because Mother has shown no reversible error, the order is affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This court views the evidence in a light most favorable to sustaining the superior court's findings. See Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205, 207 ¶ 2 (App. 2008).
¶2 M.S. lives with Mother, her significant other and others in a loving home. Mother and M.S. (and the others in the home) appear to have a very close relationship. M.S. has now finished eighth grade and appears to be thriving in school and socially. Father has had no contact with M.S. since 2008 and has provided no support of any type during that time.
¶3 In September 2016, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights, alleging abandonment and that termination was in the best interests of M.S. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 8-533(B)(1)(2017). In March 2017, after Mother properly served Father, the superior court held an adjudication hearing. The court later found Mother had shown abandonment by clear and convincing evidence but had failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination was in the best interests of M.S. This court has jurisdiction over Mother's timely appeal pursuant to Article 6, Section, 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 8-235(A), 12-2101(A) and 12-120.21(A) and Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 103-04.
Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated. --------
DISCUSSION
¶4 To grant Mother's petition, the superior court was required to find abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and also find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination was in the best interests of M.S. See Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279, 288 ¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 249 ¶ 12 (2000). Because the superior court "is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts," this court will affirm an order terminating parental rights as long as it is supported by reasonable evidence. Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93 ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
¶5 There is no dispute that Mother proved the statutory ground of abandonment. The evidence showed Father had no contact with M.S. since 2008 and had not supported him financially or emotionally for many years. Father's brief on appeal admits to an inability "to advance a non-frivolous/meritorious argument as it pertains to the substan[tive] ground of abandonment. As such no argument as to this ground shall be raised." The record amply supports the abandonment finding.
¶6 Mother challenges the finding that termination was not in the best interests of M.S. Best interests focuses on whether the child would benefit from termination or, in the alternative, whether continuation of the parent-child relationship would be harmful. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 50 ¶ 19 (App. 2004). A best interests determination is a finding of fact, most appropriately decided by the trier of fact. Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282 ¶ 13 (App. 2002). Given this fact-intensive inquiry, the best interests determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 47 ¶ 8.
¶7 On appeal, in challenging the best interests finding, Mother repeats the evidence showing abandonment. The question of best interests, however, is different than whether abandonment was shown. Cf. In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6831, 155 Ariz. 556, 559 (App. 1988) (noting best interests of the child alone may be sufficient to deny termination).
¶8 Mother testified to concerns about Father's history of substance abuse. The superior court, however, found no evidence that Father had abused substances from or after 2008. Mother has not shown that this finding of fact was in error.
¶9 Existence of an adoptive plan may be sufficient to show that termination would benefit a child, meaning that termination would be in the best interests of a child. Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 50 ¶ 19. Here, however, the evidence shows Mother was considering an adoption by her significant other at some point in the future, not that she had a plan of adoption in place. Accordingly, and although such a plan may be put in place in the future, based on the evidence provided at trial, Mother has shown no error.
¶10 Mother points to evidence suggesting that M.S. would or could be harmed psychologically if termination was not granted. Harm if termination is not granted can serve as a basis for finding that termination is in the best interests of a child. Id. Mother has not shown, however, that such evidence mandates, as a matter of law, a finding that termination is in the best interests of M.S. Accordingly, and given the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry, Mother has not shown that the superior court's finding to the contrary was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 47 ¶ 8.
CONCLUSION
¶11 Because Mother has shown no reversible error, the superior court's order denying her petition to terminate Father's parental rights is affirmed.