In Re Term of Parental Rights as to E.M. and D.M.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to E.M. and D.M. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.M. and D.M., JR. No. 1 CA-JV 24-0153 FILED 04-16-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD534278 The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Maricopa County Office of the Public Advocate, Mesa By Seth Draper Counsel for Appellant Donald P. Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson By Jennifer R. Blum Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety Maricopa County Office of the Legal Advocate, Phoenix By Amanda Adams Counsel for Appellees E.M. and D.M., Jr. OPINION Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Angela K. Paton joined, and Judge Samuel A. Thumma specially concurred.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.M. and D.M. Opinion of the Court C A T T A N I, Judge: ¶1 Donald P. (“Father”) appeals an order terminating his parental rights as to two of his children, E.M. and D.M. (collectively, “Children”), on the length-of-felony-sentence statutory ground.1 See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(4). This opinion addresses how to assess “the degree to which the parent–child relationship can be continued and nurtured during the incarceration,” the second of six non-exclusive factors relevant to whether a parent’s imprisonment will deprive the child of a “normal home” as necessary to support termination on this statutory ground. See Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246, 251–52, ¶ 29 (2000). To avoid rendering this second Michael J. factor “self-fulfilling,” see Jessie D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 251 Ariz. 574, 581, ¶ 17 (2021), as discussed below, the superior court must address something beyond the limitations inherent in imprisonment and instead render an individualized determination of whether and how the parental relationship can—or cannot—be maintained despite those limitations. ¶2 Consistent with a concession of error by the Arizona Department of Child Safety (“DCS”), we suspended this appeal and revested jurisdiction in the superior court for clarified findings regarding the degree to which Father’s relationship with Children can be continued and nurtured while he remains incarcerated. Having considered the clarified findings, along with supplemental briefing, we now affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶3 E.M. and D.M. were born in 2016 and 2018, respectively. In 2019, Father was arrested on various felony charges. He pleaded guilty to three nonviolent felony offenses in 2021 and was sentenced to a total term of 11 years in prison. Father’s anticipated release date is in 2028. ¶4 In September 2021, a few months after Father’s sentencing, DCS removed Children and their siblings from Mother’s home due to concerns of substance abuse and neglect. Father, who remained in prison, did not contest the allegations of DCS’s resulting dependency petition, and the court found Children dependent as to him. 1 Cynthia M. (“Mother”)’s parental rights as to Children have also been terminated, but she is not a party to this appeal. Father’s older children were subject to the dependency but are not parties to this appeal. 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E.M. and D.M. Opinion of the Court ¶5 DCS records reflect that Father actively engaged in the case and communicated with DCS throughout, and that he completed programs offered in prison to improve his parenting capabilities. Father likewise had positive, established relationships with Children, notwithstanding that they were