Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9365, 759 P.2d 643.

40 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to M.K. and M.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to M.K. and M.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Action No. J-9365, (noting that criminal conviction that “was finally adjudicated” is “not subject to collateral attack” in termination case).4 ¶30 Father argues that DCS did not provide appropriate reunification services.
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Action No. J-9365, modified on other grounds by Maricopa Cnty.
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Z.L. 536 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Z.L. 536 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Samantha D. v. Dcs, M.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Samantha D. v. Dcs, M.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Action No. J-9365, holding modified on other grounds by Maricopa Cnty.
Andrew P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Andrew P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Action No. J-9365, (explaining motion to continue reviewed for “clear abuse of discretion”).
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Robert L. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Robert L. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Gabriel A., Heather M. v. Dcs, G.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gabriel A., Heather M. v. Dcs, G.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Philip W. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Philip W. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Action No. J-9365, holding modified on other grounds by Maricopa County Juv.
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Action No. J-9365, (citation omitted).
Mark M. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Mark M. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Action No. J- 9365, (citation omitted).
Lewis Y. v. Cassidy G., A.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lewis Y. v. Cassidy G., A.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Salvatore D. v. Whitney D., S.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Salvatore D. v. Whitney D., S.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Catrina K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Catrina K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Atkinson v. McIndoo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Action No. J–9365, (“Motions to continue are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”).
Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Claiming good cause under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), and citing Ya-vapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9365, , DCS *303 noted that therapists and a psychologist for the children “have all strongly opined that it would not be in the children’s best interest to testify.” Father, in a response Mother joined, opposed DCS’ motion, arguing Parents “have an unequivocal due process right to have their kids t
Kimberly D.-D. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 320 P.3d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Kimberly D.-D. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 320 P.3d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Action No. J-9365, (“Motions to continue are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.”); cf. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7499 786 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7499 786 P.2d 1004 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
We acknowledge, however, that this court has twice stated that a parent’s right to due process in termination proceedings includes “a right to confront witnesses where the witnesses’ testimony goes to the heart of the termination proof.” See Matter of the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-9365, , Matter of the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4374

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by