In Re Term of Parental Rights as to W.P. and W.P.

── In Re Term of Parental Rights as to W.P. and W.P. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 22, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 W.P. and W.P. No. 1 CA-JV 25-0166 FILED 05-22-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. JD36129 The Honorable Pamela Gates, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED COUNSEL Center for the Rights of Abused Children, Phoenix By Tom Jose, Timothy D. Keller, Logan Nuttall Counsel for Appellants Ian & Sara Peterson Maricopa County Legal Defender’s Office, Phoenix By Jamie R. Heller Counsel for Appellee Justin L.  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO W.P. and W.P. Decision of the Court Denise L. Carroll, Scottsdale Counsel for Appellee Mother Caitlyn P. Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Autumn Spritzer Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Intervenors Ian and Sara Peterson purport to appeal from an order denying a motion to terminate the parental rights of Justin L. and Caitlyn P. (Parents) to their twins. Parents move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Petersons are not aggrieved parties. Because this court lacks appellate jurisdiction, the court grants that motion and dismisses the appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 The twins were born in July 2023. The Department of Child Safety (DCS) almost immediately took them into custody and filed a dependency petition, alleging substance abuse and other grounds. The twins were placed in the physical custody of the Petersons, where they apparently remain today as dependent children. In February 2025, after Parents had re-engaged in services and DCS withdrew a motion to terminate, the Petersons moved to intervene. In March 2025, the court permitted the Petersons to intervene “for purposes of discussing placement and visitation.” Meanwhile, counsel for the twins filed a motion to terminate. In October 2025, the court denied that motion without prejudice. The Petersons then filed a timely notice of appeal from that denial. 2  IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO W.P. and W.P. Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶3 Parents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Petersons are not aggrieved by the October 2025 order and, therefore, have no right to appeal. See Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 601(a). In its answering brief, DCS also argues this court should dismiss the appeal. In seeking to appeal, the Petersons have the burden to show appellate jurisdiction. Jessicah C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 248 Ariz. 203, 205 ¶ 9 (App. 2020). ¶4 Only an “aggrieved party” may appeal from a final order in a juvenile proceeding. Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 601(a); A.R.S. § 8-235(A). To be an aggrieved party, the final order being challenged must deny “the party a personal or property right or imposes a substantial burden on the party.” Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. 601(a); Jewel C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 347, 349 ¶ 3 (App. 2018) (citing cases). Here, the Petersons argue they were aggrieved because the October 2025 order “placed a substantial burden on their ability to adopt” the twins. ¶5 The Petersons, who wish to adopt the twins, undoubtedly are disappointed with the October 2025 order. However, the Petersons ac