Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6831, 748 P.2d 785.

120 citing documents.

Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stephanie M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stephanie M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mary Jean M. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mary Jean M. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Action No. JS–6831, (“In most cases, the presence of a statutory ground will have a negative effect on the children[,]” which supports a best interests finding.).
Donald O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Donald O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cesar S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cesar S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brittany P., Andres G. v. Dcs, N.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brittany P., Andres G. v. Dcs, N.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Juvenile Action No. JS-6831
Titus S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Titus S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Action No. JS-6831 , , 559, , 788 (App. 1988).
Penny G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Penny G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Juvenile Action No. JS-6831 , , 559, , 788 (App. 1988) (holding that despite abandonment there would be no benefit from a severance or harm from the continuation of the parent's rights when there was a potential for a deeper relationship with the parent).
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dominique M. v. Department of Child Safety 376 P.3d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dominique M. v. Department of Child Safety 376 P.3d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Victoria G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Victoria G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Roberto A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Roberto A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Action No. JS- 6831, see also Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 35, 110 P.3d at 1020 (stating that, in a best interest inquiry, “we can presume that the interests of the parent and child diverge because the court has already found the existence of one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and co
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
Action No. JS-6831, (“In most cases, the presence of a statutory ground will have a negative effect on the children[,]” which supports a best-interests finding.).
Johanna K. v. Dcs, R.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johanna K. v. Dcs, R.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mary B., Christopher W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Mary B., Christopher W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jaimee S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jaimee S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Chaine M. v. Pamela R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Chaine M. v. Pamela R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
See Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6831, (noting that proof of a clear and convincing statutory ground for severance “must also show that [the] ground somehow deprives the parent of the ability to effectively care for the child.”).
Desiree S. v. Department of Child Safety 334 P.3d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Desiree S. v. Department of Child Safety 334 P.3d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigoberto O. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rigoberto O. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Juvenile Action No. JS−6831, ) (internal citation omitted).
Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 312 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 312 P.3d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 219 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. , Jesse C., Kailynn C., Michele C. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jordan C. , Jesse C., Kailynn C., Michele C. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Cf. In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6831, (“[T]ermination cannot be predicated solely on the best interests of the child.”).
Jordan C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 219 P.3d 296 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Cf. In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6831, , (“[T]ermination cannot be predicated solely on the best interests of the child.”).