In Re Term of Parental Rights as to C.M.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to C.M. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 17, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 C.M. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0176 FILED 04-17-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400SV202500003 The Honorable Levi Gunderson, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Elizabeth M. Brown, Phoenix Counsel for Appellant Mother Zachary Law Group, PLC, Mesa By Jessica Zachary Counsel for Appellee Father  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.M. Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. B E C K E, Judge: ¶1 Mother appeals the superior court’s denial of her petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to their minor child (“C.M.”). For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Father were never married but lived together from the time C.M. was born in October 2018 until Mother and C.M. moved out in July 2023. C.M. has lived with Mother ever since. ¶3 In October 2023, Mother obtained an order of protection against Father that listed C.M.’s name but did not include any restrictions on Father having contact with C.M. Around the same time, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. In May 2024, the petition and order of protection were dismissed when the parties participated in mediation conducted through the Dependency Alternative Program and agreed to establish legal decision-making and a parenting plan.1 As part of that mediation, a social study was conducted. ¶4 At mediation, the parties agreed to designate Mother the primary residential parent and award her sole legal decision-making authority. Father was awarded supervised parenting time along with telephone and videoconference contact with C.M. in the afternoons. 1 The superior court took judicial notice of the case establishing legal decision-making and parenting time, S1400DO2024-00422. The superior court was permitted to do so, and we similarly take judicial notice of the -00422 case. See Ariz. R. Evid. 201; In re Sabino R., 198 Ariz. 424, 425, ¶ 4 (App. 2000). 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO C.M. Decision of the Court ¶5 In January 2025, Mother again petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights as to C.M., alleging abandonment and substance abuse. Mother alleged Father had made no attempts to contact or see C.M. in almost a year. She also alleged Father had an extensive history of abusing alcohol and had “since run into legal trouble” concerning this abuse. ¶6 At a two-day trial held in August and September 2025, the superior court heard testimony from Mother, Father, the mother of one of Father’s other children, Mother’s mother and step-father, Father’s probation officer, and the court-appointed investigator who conducted the social study in the 2024 case. ¶7 Although the superior court found Mother had proven by clear and convincing evidence both that Father had abandoned the child and that Father had a history of chronic alcohol abuse under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(1) and (3), it denied Mother’s petition to terminate Father’s parental rights because it did not find termination to be in C.M.’s best interests. The court found Mother’s concern that C.M. would be returned to Father’s care if she were to die too spe