Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 286 P.3d 166.

26 citing documents.

Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Amanda Campion and James Campion v. City of Tucson 536 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2023
Sec., (“We will not reverse for a procedural error absent a showing of prejudice.”).
In Re Dependency as to G.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Dependency as to G.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Aaron W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aaron W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 24 (App. 4 The position taken by DCS is not supported by the record.
Rick R. v. Dcs, H.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rick R. v. Dcs, H.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
K.C. v. Dcs, Deandra G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell 418 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
¶ 17, ("The 90-day time limit for the completion of a dependency hearing protects children's health and safety as well as the fundamental rights of parents regarding their children.").
Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristina T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 17 (App. 2012) ("[I]f dependency is proven, a prompt adjudication enhances finality and a child's stability by more quickly initiating either reunification efforts or termination proceedings," thereby protecting the best interests of the child.); Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
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., 424, ¶¶ 17, 29 (App. 2012) (“[I]f dependency is proven, a prompt adjudication enhances finality and a child’s stability by more quickly initiating either reunification efforts or termination proceedings,” thereby protecting “the best interest of the child.”); Antonio P. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jessyca P., Bradon P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessyca P., Bradon P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶14 this court held that a dependency adjudication made beyond the time limit specified in § 8-842(C) is not automatically void, and affirmed a dependency order made after the statutory time limit because the parent was not prejudiced by the delay.
Angela B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Angela B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Steven Lane Fuller v. State of Arizona 314 P.3d 814 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
Sec., ¶¶ 18-22, -72 (App. 2012) (finding violation of time limit in dependency proceeding did not require dismissal exceeded also suggests the legislature intended the time limit to be mandatory.
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
In Joshua J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, this court determined that our legislature’s use of the word “shall” in § 8- 842(C) was directory and not mandatory, and that a violation of the initial, ninety-day limit does not require automatic dismissal and “does not automatically render void all further proceedings.” ¶¶ 18-20, -72 (App. 2012).