Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 304 P.3d 1115.

143 citing documents.

Michael M. v. Katie A., E.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶16 P.3d 1115 (App. 2013) P.3d 602 (App. 2014) in support of his assertion that Mother prevented him from having contact with E.O.
Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Mother also alleges Father interfered with her ability to develop a normal parental relationship with the Children by terminating her contact with them in March 2015
Floyd R. v. Dcs, S.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Floyd R. v. Dcs, S.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In addition, Father admitted that it was not the lack of a formal paternity test that dissuaded him from exercising his parental rights and performing his parental obligations—instead, as he conceded, “it was a bad time and to be honest, I really wasn’t trying to be the father that I could be.” ¶26 Finally, P.3d 1115 (App. 2013), Father argues that circumstances may exist, such as a mother’s efforts to disrupt a relationship between a father and his child, that must be considered in determining
Heather R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heather R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
S.S., S.S. v. Stephanie H. 388 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
S.S., S.S. v. Stephanie H. 388 P.3d 569 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 21 (App. 2013) ("A parent may not restrict the other parent from interacting with their child and then petition to terminate the latter's rights for abandonment.").
Nicole R. v. Dean C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicole R. v. Dean C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 21 (App. 2013) (“A parent may not restrict the other parent from interacting with their child and then petition to terminate the latter’s rights for abandonment.”).
Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Marc S. v. Robyn P./william P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
2 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the [juvenile] court’s ruling.” ¶ 17 (App. 2013).
Dixie J. v. John S., A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dixie J. v. John S., A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Decision of the Court ¶13 Mother argues that Father unreasonably interfered with her efforts to maintain a relationship with A.J.
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
¶ 20 (App. 2013); Yuma Cnty.
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
(“[A] parent who has persistently and substantially restricted the other parent’s interaction with their child may not prove abandonment based on evidence that the other has had only limited involvement with the child.”); see also Michael J., , 995 P.2d at 687
Sara R. v. Jeremy R., C.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sara R. v. Jeremy R., C.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 18 (App. 2013).
Renee P., Richard P. v. Dcs, A.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Renee P., Richard P. v. Dcs, A.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Angela E. v. Dcs, R.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Angela E. v. Dcs, R.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Anne-Marie O. v. Dcs, A.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Anne-Marie O. v. Dcs, A.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Karli B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Karli B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Douglas F. v. Dcs, S.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Douglas F. v. Dcs, S.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Baker v. Meyer 346 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Baker v. Meyer 346 P.3d 998 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Ct. App. 2014) (order that child attend boarding school a custody decision, not school choice; sending child to school in Utah against mother’s wishes essentially abrogated her parenting status and was change of custody); -22 (App. 2013) (“parent entitled to reasonable parenting time ‘to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the parent’”), quoting § 25-403.01(D).
Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶31 P.3d 1115 (App. 2013), Father argues that DCS improperly stopped his telephonic contact with the children in October 2013, thereby interfering with his communication with the children and artificially creating the circumstances of abandonment.
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Rocky J. 323 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Rocky J. 323 P.3d 720 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-94 ¶ 1, -117 (App. 2013) (holding “that a parent who has persistently and substantially restricted the other parent’s interaction with their child may not prove abandonment based on evidence that the other has had only limited involvement with the child”).
William W. v. Brooke S., P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Distinguished William W. v. Brooke S., P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
5 WILLIAM W. v. BROOKE S. Decision of the Court ¶ 1