In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to M.P.
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
June 3, 2025
Case Summary
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.P. Nos. 2 CA-JV 2024-0093 and 2 CA-JV 2024-0094 (Consolidated) Filed June 3, 2025 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County Nos. S20240024 and JD20230397 The Honorable Helena S. Seymour, Judge Pro Tempore VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Robert A. Kerry, Tucson Counsel for Appellant Mother Maria P. Child and Family Law Clinic, Tucson By Paul Bennett Counsel for Appellant M.P. Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General By Dawn R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.P. Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Vásquez authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom concurred and from which Judge Sklar dissented. V Á S Q U E Z, Judge: ¶1 Maria P. and her daughter M.P. each appeal the juvenile court’s November 2024 ruling terminating Maria’s parental rights to M.P., born in February 2023, based on neglect.1 See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2). Their primary argument in this consolidated appeal is that Maria’s constitutional rights were violated because the court terminated her parental rights without considering her compliance with the case plan and participation in reunification services. They also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s best-interests finding. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand. Factual and Procedural Background ¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the juvenile court’s ruling. See Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, ¶ 13 (App. 2011). In September 2023, Maria called 9-1-1 after M.P. refused to eat and Maria was concerned that her daughter was having a seizure. Seven-month-old M.P. weighed approximately seven pounds at the hospital and was diagnosed with severe malnutrition. She was observed to have sunken eyes and cheeks and loose, hanging skin. A computed tomography scan of M.P.’s brain showed atrophy from the malnutrition. Maria reported that she was breastfeeding M.P. and that she and M.P.’s father had adopted “a more holistic approach to life.” The Department of Child Safety (DCS) took custody of M.P., and Maria was arrested for child abuse. Maria subsequently pled guilty to one count of attempted child abuse and was placed on probation for seventeen years. ¶3 In September 2024, DCS filed a dependency petition, alleging, as to Maria, that M.P. was dependent due to neglect—specifically, that Maria had “failed to recognize early signs of malnutrition” and had “failed to take appropriate action to ensure the child’s wellbeing.” DCS 1 The juvenile court also terminated the parental rights of M.P.’s father, Alonzo M. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.P. Opinion of the Court additionally alleged that Maria had neglected M.P. because of domestic violence between Maria and M.P.’s father. In November 2023, Maria entered a no-contest plea to an amended petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated M.P. dependent as to her. Consistent with DCS’s recommendation, the court set a case plan goal of family reunification and ordered DCS to provide services to accomplish the goal. Upon Maria’s motion, the court placed M.P. with Maria’s sister. At a review hearing in January 2024, the court found that DCS was making reasonable efforts to accomplish the case plan goal and that Maria was compliant with the plan tasks. The court therefore affirmed reunification as the goal. ¶4 The following month, however, DCS filed a petition for termination of the parent-child relationship, solely alleging that Maria had neglected M.P. by “causing the child to have severe malnourishment while in her care and custody.” Meanwhile, at a permanency hearing in March 2024, the juvenile court again found Maria was “fully compliant with the case plan tasks” and affirmed the case plan goal of family reunification. In April 2024, the court held an initial severance hearing and set the trial. ¶5 On June 7, 2024, M.P. filed a motion for summary judgment on the petition for termination. She argued that DCS’s petition was “constitutionally deficient for failure to consider the parent’s progress toward reunification or current ability to safely and effectively parent.” M.P. further asserted that DCS could not “now claim that reasonable efforts would be futile” because DCS had “prepared and presented a reunification case plan,” suggesting it thought the plan had a “reasona
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO
IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.P.
Nos. 2 CA-JV 2024-0093 and 2 CA-JV 2024-0094 (Consolidated)
Filed June 3, 2025
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
Nos. S20240024 and JD20230397
The Honorable Helena S. Seymour, Judge Pro Tempore
VACATED AND REMANDED
COUNSEL
Robert A. Kerry, Tucson Counsel for Appellant Mother Maria P.
Child and Family Law Clinic, Tucson By Paul Bennett Counsel for Appellant M.P.
Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General By Dawn R. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Tucson Counsel for Appellee Department of Child Safety IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.P. Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Judge Vásquez authored the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eckerstrom concurred and from which Judge Sklar dissented.
V Á S Q U E Z, Judge:
¶1 Maria P. and her daughter M.P. each appeal the juvenile court’s November 2024 ruling terminating Maria’s parental rights to M.P., born in February 2023, based on neglect.1 See A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(2). Their primary argument in this consolidated appeal is that Maria’s constitutional rights were violated because the court terminated her parental rights without considering her compliance with the case plan and participation in reunification services. They also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s best-interests finding. For the following reasons, we vacate and remand.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the juvenile court’s ruling. See Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, ¶ 13 (App. 2011). In September 2023, Maria called 9-1-1 after M.P. refused to eat and Maria was concerned that her daughter was having a seizure. Seven-month-old M.P. weighed approximately seven pounds at the hospital and was diagnosed with severe malnutrition. She was observed to have sunken eyes and cheeks and loose, hanging skin. A computed tomography scan of M.P.’s brain showed atrophy from the malnutrition. Maria reported that she was breastfeeding M.P. and that she and M.P.’s father had adopted “a more holistic approach to life.” The Department of Child Safety (DCS) took custody of M.P., and Maria was arrested for child abuse. Maria subsequently pled guilty to one count of attempted child abuse and was placed on probation for seventeen years.
¶3 In September 2024, DCS filed a dependency petition, alleging, as to Maria, that M.P. was dependent due to neglect—specifically, that Maria had “failed to recognize early signs of malnutrition” and had “failed to take appropriate action to ensure the child’s wellbeing.” DCS
1 The juvenile
court also terminated the parental rights of M.P.’s
father, Alonzo M. He is not a party to this appeal.
2
IN RE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.P. Opinion of the Court
additionally alleged that Maria had neglected M.P. because of domestic violence between Maria and M.P.’s father. In November 2023, Maria entered a no-contest plea to an amended petition, and the juvenile court adjudicated M.P. dependent as to her. Consistent with DCS’s recommendation, the court set a case plan goal of family reunification and ordered DCS to provide services to accomplish the goal. Upon Maria’s motion, the court placed M.P. with Maria’s sister. At a review hearing in January 2024, the court found that DCS was making reasonable efforts to accomplish the case plan goal and that Maria was compliant with the plan tasks. The court therefore affirmed reunification as the goal.
¶4 The following month, however, DCS filed a petition for termination of the parent-child relationship, solely alleging that Maria had neglected M.P. by “causing the child to have severe malnourishment while in her care and custody.” Meanwhile, at a permanency hearing in March 2024, the juvenile court again found Maria was “fully compliant with the case plan tasks” and affirmed the case plan goal of family reunification. In April 2024, the court held an initial severance hearing and set the trial.
¶5 On June 7, 2024, M.P. filed a motion for summary judgment on the petition for termination. She argued that DCS’s petition was “constitutionally deficient for failure to consider the parent’s progress toward reunification or current ability to safely and effectively parent.” M.P. further asserted that DCS could not “now claim that reasonable efforts would be futile” because DCS had “prepared and presented a reunification case plan,” suggesting it thought the plan had a “reasona
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 3, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools