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

Opinion

. 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 05-28-2026

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 /Intervenors

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 I.P. and S.P. (Intervenors) 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 Intervenors 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 Intervenors, 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, I.P. and S.P. moved to intervene. In March 2025, the court permitted I.P. and S.P. 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. Intervenors 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 Intervenors 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, Intervenors 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, Intervenors argue they were aggrieved because the October 2025 order “placed a substantial burden on their ability to adopt” the twins.

¶5 Intervenors, who wish to adopt the twins, undoubtedly are disappointed with the October 2025 order. However, they acknowledge that they have no right to adopt children placed with them. See A.R.S. § 8- 530. Nor have they cited any authority showing that an order denying a motion to terminate parental rights is a substantial burden on the placement of children who wish to adopt them if termination had been granted.

¶6 Intervenors argue the October 2025 order imposes “independent consequences” on them, citing In re G.R., 255 Ariz. 444 (App. 2023). In finding appellate jurisdiction, In re G.R. addressed the collateral consequences of a dependency finding, which can disqualify a parent from certain benefits. 255 Ariz. at 447 ¶¶ 15-16. Here, however, there are no such collateral consequences for Intervenors as a result of the October 2025 order. As this court noted in a different context, “‘[m]ere disappointment’ in a ruling will not make a party aggrieved.” Chambers v. United Farm Workers, 25 Ariz. App. 104, 107 (1975); cf. Jewel C., 244 Ariz. at 350 ¶ 7 (holding intervenor was not an “aggrieved party” entitled to appeal change of placement).

¶7 Intervenors have not shown that they are aggrieved parties entitled to appeal from the October 2025 order. Given the fact-intensive nature of their arguments, in the exercise of its discretion, the court declines Intervenors’ alternative request that this court treat their putative appeal as a petition seeking special action review. See Ariz. R.P. Spec. Act. 11(e), 12 (a).

3 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO W.P. and W.P. Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶8 The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR