Kenneth B. v. Tina B.
226 Ariz. 33
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Tina and Father divorced in 2004; Tina's children were two and 15 months old, and for over nine months before dissolution they lived with Tina's sister-in-law and brother, Kenneth and Kelly.
- Dissolution decree gave Father joint legal custody but physical care to Kenneth and Kelly; Father to pay $1,000 monthly child support and provide medical/dental insurance.
- In 2009 Tina moved to change physical custody; Kenneth and Kelly petitioned to terminate Tina's parental rights, alleging abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1).
- Trial showed Tina had limited contact; after she moved four hours away, visits were intermittent; in 2006 she absconded with the children, Amber Alert issued, later found at a Phoenix shelter, and Tina pled guilty to custodial interference.
- A restraining order blocked Tina’s contact; she sought parenting time later, receiving limited supervised visits; Kenneth and Kelly sought termination.
- Superior Court denied termination, finding no intentional relinquishment and noting Tina’s limited bonding, mental stability concerns, and work/living issues; guardians were appointed with visitation left to them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abandonment requires intent to relinquish | Kenneth & Kelly: abandonment governed by conduct, not intent. | Tina: defense relies on lack of intent undermines abandonment. | Abandonment assessed by conduct, not sole intent. |
| What constitutes abandonment under § 8-533(B)(1) | Kenneth & Kelly: Tina failed reasonable support and regular contact. | Tina: she provided some support and contact, not minimal. | Abandonment exists where reasonable support and regular contact are lacking under the circumstances. |
| Role of minimal contact vs. total conduct in unusual custody | Kenneth & Kelly: court should consider all factors, not just minimal contact. | Tina: minimal contact should be the threshold for abandonment. | Decision properly considers multiple factors beyond minimal contact. |
| Standard of appellate review and legal application | Kenneth & Kelly: superior court misapplied abandonment law. | Tina: court complied with law. | Court vacates judgment denying termination and remands for proper application of abandonment law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (aband. not based on intent; focus on conduct and reasonable support)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (abandonment grounds require best-interests analysis and statutory interpretation)
- In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. 86 (1994) (varies what constitutes reasonable support, regular contact, and supervision)
- Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (2007) (standard of review and evidentiary sufficiency in termination cases)