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

.
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

4