Pedro R. v. Dcs, 1 CA-JV 16-0256

Pedro R. was arrested in Nebraska in Dec. 2013, later pled guilty to two felonies and was sentenced to 8–12 years; earliest release date April 2019.
Children: E.R. (over 9 when incarceration began) and M.R. (almost 6). By projected release, Pedro will have been incarcerated for roughly half of each child’s life.
Prior to incarceration Pedro had limited contact (2–3 times/month), no overnight stays; during incarceration children had phone contact but expressed they did not wish contact; DCS reported Pedro did not maintain consistent contact with the Department.
The children’s mother’s parental rights were also terminated; the children are placed with their grandfather and step-grandmother, who are willing to adopt.
Juvenile court terminated Pedro’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4) (length of felony sentence). The court did not explicitly make the ICWA findings required by statute; Pedro raised that issue for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4) was supported by sufficient evidence	Pedro: DCS failed to present sufficient evidence that his felony sentence would deprive the children of a normal home for years	DCS: Length of sentence, limited parent-child relationship, children’s wishes, lack of other parent, placement and adoptive plan support severance	Affirmed — juvenile court did not abuse its discretion; evidence supports termination under § 8-533(B)(4)
Whether the juvenile court made required ICWA findings (active efforts and beyond‑reasonable‑doubt harm)	Pedro: Court failed to make the statutory ICWA findings, so termination invalid	DCS: Pedro waived the challenge by not objecting in juvenile court; expert testimony in record satisfies ICWA requirements	Affirmed — although the court did not make the explicit ICWA findings, review for fundamental error found none because qualified expert testimony (uncontested) established active efforts and likelihood of serious harm

Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (standard of appellate review for sufficiency of evidence in termination proceedings)
Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (2000) (factors to evaluate termination under length-of-incarceration statute)
Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445 (App. 2007) (no single factor is dispositive in § 8-533(B)(4) analysis)
Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Matthew L., 223 Ariz. 547 (App. 2010) (appellate view of facts in light most favorable to upholding juvenile court)
Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Oscar O., 209 Ariz. 332 (App. 2004) (appellate courts will not reweigh evidence in termination proceedings)
Valerie M. v. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 219 Ariz. 331 (2009) (ICWA requires active efforts finding and beyond-reasonable-doubt expert finding before termination)
Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 230 Ariz. 236 (App. 2012) (fundamental-error review appropriate when ICWA findings not objected to in juvenile court)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (standard for fundamental-error review)