Thomas A. v. Samantha A., 1 CA-JV 16-0318

Father (Thomas A.) convicted in 2011 of five counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor; sentenced to an aggregate 27 years in prison and lifetime probation with a prohibition on contact with his children.
Mother (Samantha A.) obtained sole legal custody after divorce in 2011 and in July 2015 petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4) (length of incarceration deprives children of a normal home).
Father had no contact with the children for more than four years and was barred from corresponding with them while incarcerated.
At the termination hearing, the superior court applied the Michael J. factors (examining relationship, ability to nurture during incarceration, child age, sentence length, availability of other parent, and harm from parental absence) and made specific findings on each factor.
The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under § 8-533(B)(4) and, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination was in the children’s best interests because Mother’s partner intended to marry and adopt and provided daily fathering and stable care.
Father appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, deferring to the superior court’s credibility findings and factual determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether Father’s 27-year sentence supports termination under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4)	Father’s incarceration is so long it will deprive the children of a normal home for years; Michael J. factors support termination	Sentence alone shouldn’t automatically end parental rights; case-specific analysis required	Court: Yes. Applying Michael J. factors, clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 8-533(B)(4)
Whether termination is in the children’s best interests	Termination would allow adoption by Mother’s partner who provides daily parenting and stability	Father argued for preservation of parental rights despite incarceration	Court: Yes. By a preponderance, termination benefits children given stability and the father’s lack of insight/continued belief he was harmed by the system
Standard of review / weight of trial-court findings	Superior court’s factual findings should be upheld if supported by evidence	Father contests sufficiency of evidence	Court: Defer to trial court; review for abuse of discretion and sufficiency — findings supported by record

Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (Ariz. 2005) (one statutory ground for termination sufficient)
Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (Ariz. 2000) (enumerates factors for incarceration-based termination under § 8-533(B)(4))
Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43 (App. 2004) (standard of review for termination orders)
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., 239 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2016) (adoption considerations support best-interests finding in private termination proceedings)
In re Pima Cty. Dependency Action No. 93511, 154 Ariz. 543 (App. 1987) (trial court best positioned to weigh evidence and judge credibility)