Jena H. v. Todd H.
1 CA-JV 16-0168
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Mother (Jena H.) moved out in June 2014, leaving her two children (born 2008, 2011) primarily in Father’s and his partner LS’s care.
- Parents initially scheduled twice-weekly visits; Mother’s attendance became sporadic and she spent little time parenting during visits.
- In January 2015 Mother signed a written “Notice of Surrender of Parental Rights,” then told Father/LS she wanted no further contact and sought to make a farewell video/letter.
- Father petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights (relinquishment; later amended to include abandonment). The court struck neglect and proceeded to trial on relinquishment and abandonment.
- The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother abandoned the children and that termination was in their best interests; it also found the Notice could be read as valid consent to adoption. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father/DCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother abandoned the children under A.R.S. § 8-531(1) | Mother argued evidence was insufficient; claimed Father interfered with her relationship and limited her contact | Father/DCS argued Mother provided minimal support/contact, visits were sporadic, and she chose not to provide support or parenting time | Court held abandonment proven by clear and convincing evidence (affirmed) |
| Whether Father’s actions barred a finding of abandonment (interference) | Mother relied on Calvin B. and Jose M., asserting Father curtailed her access so abandonment cannot be imputed | Father showed Mother did not consistently seek or secure visitation and declined to seek parenting time after filing; Father arranged schedule and testified Mother’s visits declined | Court distinguished Calvin B. and Jose M.; held Father’s conduct did not preclude abandonment finding |
| Whether termination is in the children’s best interests | Mother implicitly argued continuation would not harm; emphasized parental relationship | Father/LS argued severance would provide stability, permit LS to adopt, and benefit children who view LS as “mom” | Court held severance was in the children’s best interests (preponderance standard) |
| Whether the signed Notice established relinquishment/consent | Mother did not challenge relinquishment on appeal; earlier court considered statutory compliance with consents to adoption | Father argued Notice was knowing, voluntary, and could be read as consent to adoption | Court found Notice could be read as consent but affirmed termination based on abandonment alone |
Key Cases Cited
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (standards for severance: proof by clear and convincing evidence and best‑interest showing)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (abandonment measured by conduct not intent)
- Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (App. 2007) (appellate review favors facts supporting juvenile court)
- Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 232 Ariz. 292 (App. 2013) (interference defense where parent actively sought contact but was blocked)
- Jose M. v. Eleanor J., 234 Ariz. 13 (App. 2014) (similar interference circumstances supporting reversal)
- Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (best‑interest framework: benefit from adoption/stable home)
- In re Pima Juv. Action No. S-2460, 162 Ariz. 156 (App. 1989) (consideration of immediate adoptive placement in best‑interest analysis)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1998) (deference to juvenile court credibility and weighing of conflicting evidence)