Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 301 P.3d 211.

68 citing documents.

In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E v. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
In RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO E v. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to M.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to M.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Sec., -53, ¶ 34 (App. 2013).
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to B.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to B.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to N.R. and N.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to N.R. and N.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sec., –56 ¶¶ 45–50 (App. 2013) (finding that the juvenile court erred in allowing amendment of the petition to terminate parental rights on the fourth day of trial).
Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Doctor v. Potter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kyle R., Dawna-Jo H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kyle R., Dawna-Jo H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec., ¶ 44 (App. 2013) (“Adequate notice is a fundamental element of due process.”).
Huey v. Huey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Huey v. Huey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clifford C. v. Dcs, B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clifford C. v. Dcs, B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec, -58, ¶¶ 58-60 (App. 2013) (relying on a father’s “significant progress” in obtaining employment, housing, and sobriety, and his “considerable efforts to provide for the needs of his [c]hildren”).
Alupoaiei v. correa/alupoaiei Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Alupoaiei v. correa/alupoaiei Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., –49, ¶¶ 5–11 (App. 2013) (stating that foster parents stood in loco parentis because they cared for the children for twenty months while the mother struggled with substance abuse and the father was incarcerated or in treatment programs).
Tammy R. v. Lance B., A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tammy R. v. Lance B., A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2013) ().
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2013) ().
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
at ¶ 10 ( ¶ 42 (App. 2013)).
Timothy B., Michael M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Timothy B., Michael M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 42 (App. 2013) (“In any severance proceeding, the material issue facing the court is whether a parent has the ability to properly parent his/her child; it is irrelevant whether a child has a stronger attachment to [the foster placement], whether [such placement is] more ‘nurturing,’ or whether [the placement] m
Yvette L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yvette L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cristina G., Estevanico P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cristina G., Estevanico P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 19 (App. 2013), however, foster parents have “the right to be heard in any proceeding to be held with respect to a child in foster care.” Ariz. R.P.
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D. 444 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D. 444 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(2) DCS made a “diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services”; but despite that effort, (3) Father had been unable to remedy the circumstance causing Melody to be in court-ordered out-of-home care; and (4) there was “a substantial likelihood that [Father would] not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future.” ¶ 51 (App. 2013); ¶ 17 (App. 2009).
Gonzalez, Jr. v. moraga/alba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Gonzalez, Jr. v. moraga/alba Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., -49, ¶¶ 5-11 (App. 2013) (foster parents stood in loco parentis and were allowed to intervene in dependency hearing under predecessor to § 25-409 because they cared for the children for 20 months while the children's mother struggled with drugs and their father was incarcerated in another state); Egan v. Fridlund-H
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 425 P.3d 1089 Ariz. 2018
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 425 P.3d 1089 Ariz. 2018
Sec., ¶ 38 n.11 (App. 2013)).
Jones v. Hon Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jones v. Hon Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 17 (App. 2013) (as amended).
Monica v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Monica v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., n. 11, ¶ 38 (App. 2013), and Alma S. v. Department of Child Safety, 778 Ariz. Adv.
Lucian B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Lucian B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Father also quotes Roberto F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, as supporting his argument.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by