Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 153 P.3d 1074.

257 citing documents.

Ricardo R. v. Lori C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Juan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Juan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
C.D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
C.D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 21 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
Lucian B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lucian B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rocco R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rocco R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stella H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Stella H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., –52, ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (“When considering the trial court’s express findings, we affirm the trial court’s order if the facts at trial support the trial court’s findings whether or not each supportive fact is specifically called out by the trial court in its findings.”).
Alma M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Alma M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2007) (a mother waived her objection to the lack of specificity in a severance order by not raising the issue of deficiencies in the juvenile court).
Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 21 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).
Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 21 (App. 2007) (“[A] party may not ‘sit back and not call the trial court’s attention to the lack of a specific finding on a critical issue, and then urge on appeal [] mere lack of a finding on that critical issue as a grounds for reversal.’”) (quoting Bayless Inv.
Pedro R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Pedro R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael Y. v. Dcs, C.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael Y. v. Dcs, C.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., -52, ¶ 19 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
Patrick F. v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Patrick F. v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶17 (App. 2007) (explaining that mother offered no evidence regarding “individuals who could care for the children and facilitate visitation with her in order to nurture the parent-child relationship while she was incarcerated”).
Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tyren T., Brittany H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 21 (App. 2007) (citations omitted).
Hallie D. v. Dcs, J.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hallie D. v. Dcs, J.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 12, (citation omitted), and establishes that termination is in the best interests of the child by a preponderance of the evidence, Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (citing Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Shawn B. v. Dcs, S.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shawn B. v. Dcs, S.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).
Mark T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mark T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carlos O. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carlos O. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 12, (citation omitted), and if the Department demonstrates that termination is in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence.
Glen S. v. Dcs, P.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Glen S. v. Dcs, P.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 12, (citation omitted), and that termination is in the best interests of the child by a preponderance of the evidence, Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jeffrey P. v. Department of Child Safety 368 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeffrey P. v. Department of Child Safety 368 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 15 (App. 2007) ("there is no threshold level under each individual factor in Michael J. that either compels, or forbids, severance").
Trevor H., Jamie W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Trevor H., Jamie W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 12, (citation omitted), and establishes that termination is in the best interests of the child, by a preponderance of the evidence.
Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 21, (waiver is particularly appropriate “as it relates to the alleged lack of detail in the juvenile court’s findings” because “a party may not ‘sit back and not call the [juvenile] court’s attention to the lack of a specific finding on a critical issue, and then urge on appeal
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 21, (litigant waived appellate argument that trial court erred by not making individualized findings because such findings were not requested at trial).
Marlon R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015