Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by David B. Gass](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10808511/in-re-term-of-parental-rights-as-to-lk/about:blank#o1)

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

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.K.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1 CA-JV 25-0155

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by David B. Gass

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

No. 1 CA-JV 25-0155
FILED 03-13-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. JS521210
The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Erin F., Protected address
Appellant

Denise Lynn Carroll, Scottsdale
By Denise L. Carroll
Counsel for Appellee Richard K.
IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.K.
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which
Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

G A S S, Judge:

¶1 Mother brought a private termination to terminate father’s
parental rights. The superior court found mother proved the abandonment
ground but failed to prove it would be in the child’s best interests to
terminate father’s parental rights. Mother appeals the superior court’s best
interests’ findings. Though father did not cross-appeal, he challenges the
superior court’s abandonment finding. Because reasonable evidence
supports the superior court’s best interests’ finding, the court affirms.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Because the superior court is in the best position to evaluate
the evidence, the testimony, and the credibility of the witnesses, the court
will not reweigh the evidence. In re J.C., 259 Ariz. 60, 68 ¶ 34 (App. 2024).

¶3 Mother and father have a child (born in 2013) in common.
Father was present at the child’s birth and took part in the child’s life for
the first 4 years. Though mother and father established father’s paternity at
birth, mother and father never sought court orders establishing legal
decision-making or parenting plans. They also did not establish any
informal arrangements. The parties had a child support order at some
point, though mother said father paid nothing. Father disagreed, saying he
made some payments, but he acknowledged being delinquent.

¶4 When the child was 4, father fell on hard times and
acknowledged mother filled the gap and was a great parent, at least at first.
Father says mother later began interfering with his relationship with the
child. In response, mother said father has not contacted the child since 2018.
She also said he is responsible for the lack of parental relationship, in large
part because of his 2020 incarceration.

¶5 In 2020, the superior court incarcerated father for 3.5 years on
drug possession charges. Father says while in prison, he sent about 30
letters to the child, and neither the child nor mother responded to them.
While incarcerated, father completed at least 8 programs, including

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

programs on parenting, anger management, and substance abuse. Since his
release, father secured employment and housing.

¶6 In 2025, mother sought to terminate father’s rights based on
abandonment and chronic substance abuse. At the time of the termination
adjudication, mother said the child was well adjusted and doing well in
school. Mother worried what would happen if father was reintroduced into
the child’s life because of father’s history of substance abuse, including a
2025 arrest. Mother said the child supported terminating father’s rights. She
said the child wrote a letter and offered to provide it to the superior court,
which the superior court did not admit.

¶7 The superior court held a contested adjudication, at which
mother represented herself. Following the adjudication, the superior court
found mother proved (by clear and convincing evidence) abandonment but
did not prove (by a preponderance of the evidence) termination of father’s
rights was in the child’s best interests.

¶8 In explaining its best interests’ findings, the superior court
said mother failed to present supporting evidence. First, the superior court
noted mother did not seek to terminate father’s rights so the child could be
adopted. “Rather, Mother testified that Father was a ‘POS’ and she wanted
him ‘erased’ from their lives.” Second, the superior court said mother’s case
in chief lasted only a few minutes, the superior court admitted none of her
exhibits, and mother did not sufficiently articulate a benefit to the child if
the superior court granted the termination. As to a detriment, though
mother expressed concern about the potential harm if father came back into
the child’s life, the superior court noted the parents never sought family
court orders and father had not tried “to interact with the child or interfere
with Mother’s ability to parent the child.”

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

DISCUSSION

I. Because father did not file a cross-appeal, he waived any challenge
to the superior court’s abandonment findings.

¶10 A party must file a cross-appeal if the cross-issue (1) supports
the judgment (not merely the ultimate disposition), (2) was presented to
and considered by the superior court, and (3) does not enlarge the
appellee’s rights or lessen the appellant’s rights. Bills v. Ariz. State Bd. of

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

Educ., 169 Ariz. 366, 370 (App. 1991) (recognizing a party may waive
substantive issues by failing to file a cross-appeal); see also Ariz. R. Civ. App.
P. 13(b)(2) (saying appellate courts may not reduce an appellant’s rights
without a cross-appeal).

¶11 Though the superior court denied mother’s petition, father
needed to cross-appeal the abandonment finding under the first and third
Bills factors. See Bills, 169 Ariz. at 370. As to the first factor, father’s challenge
merely supports the ultimate disposition, which is the denial of mother’s
petition. See id. As to the third factor, the relief father seeks would enlarge
father’s rights as he would no longer be under an abandonment finding. See
id. Father thus had to cross-appeal if he wanted to challenge the superior
court’s abandonment finding. See id.

¶12 Because the court will not consider father’s challenge to the
abandonment finding, the court need not address mother’s arguments
about “just cause.”

II. The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it found
termination of father’s parental rights was not in the child’s best
interests.

¶13 The court must affirm the superior court’s legal conclusion
about best interests unless “clearly erroneous.” See In re J.C., 259 Ariz. at 68
¶ 34 (cleaned up).

¶14 The superior court determines a child’s best interests by a
preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 74 ¶ 73. When the superior court finds
a parent unfit, it must consider the totality of the circumstances when
determining best interests, looking at both the unfit parent’s interests in the
child’s care and custody and the child’s need for a safe and stable home. See
id. In doing so, the superior court assesses the benefits of terminating the
relationship or the harm of continuing it, considering factors such as the
child’s adoptability and the parent’s rehabilitation. See id. A child may
benefit from termination if an adoption plan is in place or the child is
adoptable. Id. ¶ 74. Conversely, harm may exist if the unfit parent’s
unremedied unfitness affects the child’s well-being. Id.

¶15 Mother argues the superior court clearly erred when it found
termination of father’s rights was not in the child’s best interests. She argues
the child “resides in a stable, loving home with” mother and excels “in
academics, sports, and social activities.” And though the superior court did
not admit the child’s letter, she argues the child “has expressed in writing
that [the child] neither knows nor desires a relationship with” father.

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

Ultimately, she says, allowing father “to retain parental rights would
subject [the child] to potential harm, instability, and uncertainty.”

¶16 At bottom, mother asks the court to reweigh the evidence and
rule in her favor, which the court will not do. See id. at 68 ¶ 34.

CONCLUSION

¶17 The court affirms.

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

5