A new Arizona Court of Appeals opinion answers this question, and it matters to every parent in a high-conflict custody case.
If your co-parent has kept your child from you for months, you may worry that the time apart could be used against you. You may also wonder whether a court could treat that gap as “abandonment.”
On September 30, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a published opinion that speaks to this fear. In In re Termination of Parental Rights as to Z.R., No. 1 CA-JV 24-0181, the Court made two important rulings for Arizona families. Here is what happened, what the Court decided, and what it may mean for parents in Pima County.
First, What Is “Termination of Parental Rights”?
Termination (sometimes called “severance”) permanently ends the legal relationship between a parent and a child. A terminated parent loses all rights to parenting time, decision-making, and contact.
Termination cases don’t always involve the state. In Arizona, one parent can ask the Court to terminate the other parent’s rights. This often comes up when a stepparent wants to adopt the child.
Because termination is so serious, Arizona sets a high bar:
- A legal ground. The parent seeking termination must prove a reason listed in the statute (A.R.S. § 8-533) by “clear and convincing evidence.” That means the evidence must make the claim highly probable, not just slightly more likely than not.
- Best interests. The Court must then find that termination is in the child’s best interests.
What Does “Abandonment” Mean in Arizona?
Abandonment is one of the most common grounds for termination. Under A.R.S. § 8-531(1), abandonment means a parent failed to provide reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with the child.
The statute also creates a shortcut. If a parent goes six months without a normal parental relationship and without “just cause,” the Court may treat that as initial proof of abandonment.
“Just cause” is the key phrase. It means the parent had a fair, reasonable explanation for the gap and relied on it in good faith. In 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court explained that Courts should look at factors like:
- Whether the parent is acting to maintain a normal relationship with the child
- Whether the parent actively asserted their legal rights when needed
- Anything else affecting the parent’s ability, or belief in their ability, to assert those rights
The Case at a Glance
The facts in Z.R. were unusual, but the conflict behind them will sound familiar to many families.
- The parents never married. Their daughter was born in 2018.
- In 2020, Mother filed papers in family court and, two months later, petitioned to terminate Father’s rights. She said Father had signed documents consenting to termination.
- Father said he never signed those documents and was never served. In 2022, the Court set aside the termination order.
- Mother filed a second termination petition, this time alleging abandonment. The trial lasted 44 days, which the Court of Appeals called likely the longest termination hearing in Arizona history.
- Meanwhile, in family court, Mother was held in contempt for denying Father his court-ordered parenting time.
- The trial judge denied termination. Mother appealed.
- Before the appeal was decided, Mother and Father signed stipulated final orders in family court. Those orders gave them joint legal decision-making and a phased reunification plan for Father.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Father keeps his parental rights.
Ruling #1: You Can’t Block Contact and Then Call It Abandonment
The Court relied on an earlier Arizona case, Calvin B. v. Brittany B. (2013). That case holds that “just cause” exists when the parent seeking termination “persistently and substantially restricted” the other parent’s contact with the child.
In plain terms, a parent can’t keep the other parent away and then argue that the other parent wasn’t involved enough.
The trial Court found that Mother did exactly that. Among other things, she:
- Blocked Father’s phone number
- Refused his requests for visits
- Ended a supervised visitation arrangement after a successful visit
- Delayed reunification therapy and sought to pause the family court case
Father, meanwhile, “vigorously asserted his legal rights.” He moved to set aside the termination order, asked for parenting time, filed to enforce it, and sought a reunification therapist.
Notably, Mother never obtained a protective order, as the mother in Calvin B. had. The Court said that didn’t matter. Persistent interference is enough, whatever form it takes.
Ruling #2: Agreements in Family Court Carry Over to Termination Cases
This is significant for family court cases.
While the appeal was pending, Mother signed a stipulation stating that Father’s involvement was in their daughter’s best interests. She then continued to argue on appeal that ending his rights was also in her daughter’s best interests.
The Court found that Mother could not have it both ways.
- The Superior Court is one Court. Family court and juvenile court are divisions of the same Superior Court. A parent can’t take one position in one division and the opposite position in another.
- “Best interests” means the same thing in both places. The family law statute (A.R.S. § 25-403) and the termination statute (A.R.S. § 8-533) both use the phrase. The question in each is whether the Court’s action benefits the child.
The Court put it simply: it can’t “simultaneously be in a daughter’s best interests for her father to have a relationship with her and for her father to have no chance to do so.”
The Court also stressed that agreements (called “stipulations”) are binding, much like a contract. A parent remains bound by them until a Court grants relief.
A Pima County Connection
The opinion discusses two older severance cases from Pima County. In both, the parents lost their rights because they did too little to stay involved.
- In one, a parent asserted legal rights only after a termination petition was filed.
- In the other, a parent filed once to enforce visitation and then took no further action.
The Z.R. father was different. He pursued his rights consistently, through multiple proceedings, for years. That contrast shows how closely Arizona Courts examine what a parent actually did, not just how much time passed.
Keep in Mind
Family law varies significantly from state to state, and this post addresses Arizona law only. The opinion was just issued, and either party may seek review by the Arizona Supreme Court. Published Court of Appeals opinions guide trial courts across Arizona, including here in Pima County.
How Rolfe Family Law Can Help
Cases involving withheld parenting time, contempt, or termination are emotionally exhausting. They also move quickly, and early decisions can shape the outcome for years.
Annie M. Rolfe, Esq., is a State Bar of Arizona Certified Family Law Specialist who appears regularly in Pima County Superior Court. Rolfe Family Law helps Tucson-area parents with paternity, legal decision-making and parenting time, enforcement, and modification. We focus on calm, strategic advocacy that keeps your child’s well-being at the center. If you have questions about your parenting rights, contact Rolfe Family Law or call (520) 209‑2550 to schedule a consultation.