In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.K.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to L.K. ── Case No.: 1 CA-JV 25-0155 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 13, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.K. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0155 FILED 03-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JS521210 The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Erin F., Protected address Appellant Denise Lynn Carroll, Scottsdale By Denise L. Carroll Counsel for Appellee Richard K.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.K. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. G A S S, Judge: ¶1 Mother brought a private termination to terminate father’s parental rights. The superior court found mother proved the abandonment ground but failed to prove it would be in the child’s best interests to terminate father’s parental rights. Mother appeals the superior court’s best interests’ findings. Though father did not cross-appeal, he challenges the superior court’s abandonment finding. Because reasonable evidence supports the superior court’s best interests’ finding, the court affirms. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Because the superior court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, the testimony, and the credibility of the witnesses, the court will not reweigh the evidence. In re J.C., 259 Ariz. 60, 68 ¶ 34 (App. 2024). ¶3 Mother and father have a child (born in 2013) in common. Father was present at the child’s birth and took part in the child’s life for the first 4 years. Though mother and father established father’s paternity at birth, mother and father never sought court orders establishing legal decision-making or parenting plans. They also did not establish any informal arrangements. The parties had a child support order at some point, though mother said father paid nothing. Father disagreed, saying he made some payments, but he acknowledged being delinquent. ¶4 When the child was 4, father fell on hard times and acknowledged mother filled the gap and was a great parent, at least at first. Father says mother later began interfering with his relationship with the child. In response, mother said father has not contacted the child since 2018. She also said he is responsible for the lack of parental relationship, in large part because of his 2020 incarceration. ¶5 In 2020, the superior court incarcerated father for 3.5 years on drug possession charges. Father says while in prison, he sent about 30 letters to the child, and neither the child nor mother responded to them. While incarcerated, father completed at least 8 programs, including 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.K. Decision of the Court programs on parenting, anger management, and substance abuse. Since his release, father secured employment and housing. ¶6 In 2025, mother sought to terminate father’s rights based on abandonment and chronic substance abuse. At the time of the termination adjudication, mother said the child was well adjusted and doing well in school. Mother worried what would happen if father was reintroduced into the child’s life because of father’s history of substance abuse, including a 2025 arrest. Mother said the child supported terminating father’s rights. She said the child wrote a letter an