Cited by

Sec., ¶ 20 (App. 2012) (noting that, because a rule’s language is the best indication of its meaning, we “give effect to each word, phrase and clause included by the supreme court”) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2012) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 754 (1982)).

Sec., ¶¶ 21–22 (App. 2012) (citing A.R.S.

Sec., ¶ 24 (App. 2012) ("The primary purpose for requiring a court to make express findings of fact and conclusions of law is to allow the appellate court to determine exactly which issues were decided and whether the lower court correctly applied the law.").

Sec., -40, ¶ 19 (App. 2012).

§ 8–537(B); 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005); Ruben M., -40, ¶ 19 (App. 2012).

Sec., ¶ 25 (App. 3 NICHOLE W., JOSE V. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court 2012).

Sec., ¶ 22 (App. 2012)) (at a minimum, a termination order “must specify the .

Sec., ¶ 15 (App. 2012) (explaining the doctrine of fundamental error is appropriate in civil cases in “situations that may result in the denial of a constitutional right”).

Sec., ¶ 24 (App. 2012)).

Sec., ¶ 24 (App. 2012) (explaining that findings in a 5 APRILLEANN H. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court severance case should allow an appellate court “to determine exactly which issues were decided” and whether the juvenile

§ 8-844(C)(1)(a)(ii) (juvenile court must provide “[t]he factual basis for the dependency”); ¶ 22 (App. 2012) (in termination proceedings governed by Juvenile Rule 66, “the court must specify at least one factual finding sufficient to support each of th[e] conclusions of law”).