Calvin B. v. Brittany B.
232 Ariz. 292
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Calvin B. and Brittany B. divorced in 2008; dissolution decree granted Brittany sole custody and liberal visitation to Calvin.
- A 2009 modification petition sought joint custody; Brittany obtained an order of protection against Calvin, restricting contact.
- Brittany repeatedly restricted Calvin’s access through orders and protective measures; Calvin nevertheless sought visitation and later filed contempt petitions.
- Brittany later filed a petition to terminate Calvin’s parental rights based on abandonment, alleging limited contact and other failures.
- The superior court granted termination; on appeal the court reversed, finding Brittany’s barriers frustrated Calvin’s ability to develop a normal parental relationship and that abandonment had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- The appellate court remanded for consideration of feasible, affordable supervised visitation options and noted potential for pursuing other grounds for termination.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abandonment was proven by clear and convincing evidence | Brittany’s barriers to contact show abandonment | Calvin persistently sought contact despite restrictions | No; record shows Brittany impeded contact and Calvin persistently pursued rights, so abandonment not established. |
| Whether limiting barriers by Brittany negate abandonment finding | Abandonment should be found despite Brittany’s restrictions | Calvin failed to maintain normal relationship due to barriers | Six-month period and overall conduct do not satisfy abandonment given barriers were imposed by Brittany. |
| Whether termination was appropriate given statutory best interests requirement | Termination serves child’s best interests given lack of relationship | Best interests more favorable to preserving parental rights given attempts to engage | Reversed on abandonment grounds; remanded to assess visitation consistent with decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (abandonment not based on nonsupport alone; persistence required)
- In re Yuma County Juv. Ct. Action No. J-87-119, 161 Ariz. 537 (App.1989) (nonsupport alone insufficient for abandonment)
- In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501568, 177 Ariz. 571 (App.1994) (parent’s prior failure to seek visitation; order conditioning treatment does not shield from abandonment finding)
- In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action S-1607, 147 Ariz. 237 (1985) (prior lack of action to establish rights contrasted with persistent efforts here)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (abandonment framework; statutory requirements for termination)