Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Oct. 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to C.C.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-JV 25-0039

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL
RIGHTS AS TO C.C.

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0039
FILED 10-20-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JD41469
The Honorable Pamela S. Gates, Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Markia J. Hodge
Counsel for Appellee, Department of Child Safety

Maricopa County Legal Advocate’s Office, Phoenix
By Amanda L. Adams
Counsel for Child

E.C., Phoenix
Pro Se

David W. Bell, Attorney at Law, Mesa
By David W. Bell
Advisory Counsel for Appellant
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Andrew J. Becke joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Father appeals the superior court’s order terminating his
parental rights to child on the grounds of chronic substance abuse. Father
argues the superior court violated his due process rights because the
Department of Child Safety suppressed a March 2024 police report and he
did not receive notice of what he says was a continued termination
adjudication held on February 6, 2025. Father does not challenge the
grounds for termination.

¶2 The Department introduced and the superior court admitted
the March 2024 police report into evidence at the adjudication. Father was
present at the February 5, 2025 adjudication. And the adjudication did not
continue on February 6, 2025. The court thus affirms.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶3 The case begins with an earlier dependency. Child’s maternal
aunt filed a private dependency petition alleging mother and father were
unable to parent because of substance abuse, and domestic violence. After
investigation, the Department took legal custody of the child and had the
aunt remain the child’s placement. Around 3 months later, the superior
court adjudicated child dependent as to mother and father.

¶4 During the first dependency, father minimally engaged in
court-ordered services and failed to engage in any treatment. Father took
just 8 drug tests, some of which were positive for alcohol and marijuana.
Father also did not provide proof of housing or employment. During the
same time, mother completed a treatment program, attended domestic-
violence counseling, and drug tested regularly. Mother’s drug tests showed
she maintained her sobriety during that time.

¶5 Around 15 months into the first dependency, the superior
court placed the child with mother, ordered father to have weekly
supervised visits, and dismissed the dependency.

2
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
Decision of the Court

¶6 Around 9 months later, mother died. She and the child were
living with the aunt when mother died, so the child remained with the aunt.
Two weeks after mother’s death, father showed up at the aunt’s house
demanding the aunt give him the child. When the aunt did not, father called
the police alleging the aunt was denying him custody of the child and
wanted to press charges. The police went to the aunt’s house, determined
father did not have legal custody, and took no further action.

¶7 A few weeks later, the aunt filed a second private dependency
petition alleging father had been absent, continued to use substances and
alcohol, and had not supported the child for at least 3 years. The
Department again became involved and investigated. Father continuously
cancelled scheduled interviews and he did not drug test. Around a month
later, the Department took temporary custody of the child, substituted into
the aunt’s private dependency, and filed its own second dependency
petition based on father’s drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic violence.

¶8 Within a month, the superior court gave the Department
temporary legal custody and placed the child with the aunt. The
Department referred father for reunification services, but father again failed
to engage in treatment and continued to test positive for drugs and alcohol.
After the contested dependency hearing, the superior court found the child
dependent as to father because of his substance abuse.

¶9 Around 2 months later, the Department moved to terminate
father’s parental rights because of his failure to engage in services. Around
3 months after the Department filed its motion, the superior court held a
contested termination hearing. Father was present and represented by
counsel. The superior court terminated father’s parental rights to the child
on grounds of chronic substance abuse.

¶10 The court has jurisdiction over father’s timely appeal under
Article VI, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 8-235.A, 12-
120.21.A.1, and 12-2101.A.1.

DISCUSSION

¶11 The court accepts the superior court’s findings “if reasonable
evidence and inferences support them.” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 245
Ariz. 146, 151 ¶ 18 (2018) (citation omitted); see also Brionna J. v. Dep’t of Child
Safety, 255 Ariz. 471, 478 ¶ 30 (2023). The court defers to the superior court’s
factual findings 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.” Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93

3
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
Decision of the Court

¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citation omitted). The court will not reweigh the evidence.
Maria G. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 253 Ariz. 364, 366 ¶ 8 (App. 2022). The court
reviews questions of law de novo, including interpretations of statutes.
Brionna J., 255 Ariz. at 476 ¶ 17.

¶12 Father raises 3 issues. First, he challenges the superior court’s
expired temporary custody and removal order. Second, he argues the
Department suppressed evidence of the police report from the day he
confronted the aunt at her house. Third, he argues he did not receive notice
of an alleged second day of the termination adjudication. We address each
in turn.

¶13 As to father’s first argument, the issue is moot.1 The superior
court’s review process is cumulative because it “does not engage in a
perpetual review of the same evidence.” Dep’t of Child Safety v. Stocking-Tate,
247 Ariz. 108, 114 ¶ 14 (App. 2019). Instead, “each new order necessarily
replaces the last as the [superior] court gains information and perspective.”
Id.; see also Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 233 Ariz. 345, 349 ¶ 16
(App. 2013) (recognizing child welfare considerations “are rarely, if ever,
static” and “it is more likely that the child’s environment is constantly
evolving”) (citation omitted). In general, appellate arguments challenging
a superior court’s order become moot when the superior court makes “new
findings, based on the circumstances as they exist today.” Brionna J. v. Dep’t
of Child Safety, 247 Ariz. 346, 351 ¶ 17 (App. 2019). Father’s challenge to the
long-expired temporary custody and removal order thus is moot. See In re
Dependency as to G.K., 258 Ariz. 323, 326 ¶ 11 (App. 2024) (declining to
review expired dependency finding as moot). The court declines to address
it further.

¶14 The facts do not support father’s second and third issues. As
to the second issue, the Department did not suppress any of the police
reports. Indeed, the Department offered, and the superior court admitted,
the police report into evidence at the termination adjudication. As to the
third issue, the superior court held the contested termination adjudication
on February 5, 2025. The record shows father received notice and was
present at that adjudication, and the adjudication hearing did not continue
beyond that date.

1 Father filed a Motion to Withdraw Accusation of due process violations.

Based on the court’s resolution of the issues, the court denies the motion as
moot.

4
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.C.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶15 Father does not otherwise challenge the superior court’s
findings as to the grounds and the child’s best interests. Because substantial
evidence supports the superior court’s findings, the court affirms.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5