Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Matthew L., 225 P.3d 604.

344 citing documents.

Ashlee C. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ashlee C. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Forrest C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Forrest C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 379 P.3d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Gric v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hallie D. v. Dcs, J.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Hallie D. v. Dcs, J.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010).
Mark T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
James M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mark T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
James M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Carlos O. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Victoria G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erbey B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jennifer S. v. Dcs, Z.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erbey B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Carlos O. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
Victoria G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jennifer S. v. Dcs, Z.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., -52, ¶ 21 (App. 2010) (citing Maricopa Cnty.
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Victor H. v. Dcs, N.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Glen S. v. Dcs, P.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Glen S. v. Dcs, P.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
Victor H. v. Dcs, N.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jeffrey P. v. Department of Child Safety 368 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Barbara A. v. Dcs, J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Barbara A. v. Dcs, J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jeffrey P. v. Department of Child Safety 368 P.3d 312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., -51, ¶ 15 (App. 2010) ("As long as the juvenile court considers the length of sentence, we find no error for it to also consider the anticipated release date.").
Laura G., Manuel A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Laura G., Manuel A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jose N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Roberto A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tiana S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tiana S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
Jose N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7, (citation omitted).
Roberto A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kathy S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Trevor H., Jamie W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholas P. v. Dcs, S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kathy S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
v. Matthew L., ¶ 7 (App. 2010) (citing Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Trevor H., Jamie W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholas P. v. Dcs, S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶11 Although the “anticipated release date is a relevant factor in determining whether a child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years,” Arizona Dep’t ¶ 16 (App. 2014), Father has not shown the superior court erred by considering his maximum release date, see Arizona Dep’t ¶ 15 (App. 2010) (“[a]s long as the juvenile court considers the length of sentence, we find no error for it to also consider the anticipated release date”); Rocky J., 234 Ariz. at 441 ¶ 17 (“nothing shows that