Kenneth B. v. Tina B.
243 P.3d 636
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Tina and Father divorced in 2004; children primarily lived with Tina's brother and sister-in-law (Kenneth and Kelly) for over nine months before dissolution, with Father ordered to pay $1,000 monthly in child support and to provide medical/dental insurance.
- Dissolution decree gave Tina joint legal custody but Kenneth and Kelly had physical care and control until further order; visitation was initially allowed and later supervised under court order starting in 2007.
- In 2009 Tina moved to change physical custody; Kenneth and Kelly petitioned to terminate Tina's parental rights on the ground of abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1).
- Trial evidence showed Tina did not visit regularly during the first years of the arrangement, moved four hours away, visited intermittently, and abducted the children in 2006 leading to a police Amber Alert and a restraining order.
- From 2007 to trial Tina had two supervised visits per month totaling four hours each, used only about a quarter of those visits, and health issues in 2008 explained some absences; Tina later increased visits but the bond with the children remained limited.
- The superior court found Tina fairly consistent in visits since 2007 but concluded the children had almost no bonding with her and that Tina could not adequately parent; it denied termination and appointed Kenneth and Kelly as guardians.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abandonment requires intentional relinquishment | Kenneth/Kelly: abandonment does not require intent; focus on conduct. | Tina: abandonment requires minimal contact and intent? (N/A in opinion; court's view clarified). | Abandonment is not solely about intentional relinquishment; conduct standards govern under §8-531(1). |
| What factors establish abandonment under §8-531(1) | Kenneth/Kelly: evidence should show reasonable support, regular contact, and normal supervision; Tina failed. | Tina: not adequately shown due to unusual custody arrangement and some contact. | Court must assess reasonable support, regular contact, and normal supervision considering the unique custodial context. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the abandonment standard to the facts | Kenneth/Kelly: court erred by requiring minimal contact and not focusing on overall conduct under §8-531(1). | Tina: visits and involvement were sufficient under the circumstances. | The superior court misapplied the law; vacate denial of termination and remand for proper application of abandonment standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (intent not dispositive; focus on conduct and reasonable support)
- In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, 179 Ariz. 86 (1994) (contextual guidance on reasonable support, regular contact, and normal supervision)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (abandonment grounds require proof by preponderance and best interests analysis)
- Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (2007) (standard of review; deference to superior court on factual findings)