DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shawanee S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 319 P.3d 236.

316 citing documents.

  • Tara M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Tara M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Johnny D., Theresa H. v. Dcs, D.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Johnny D., Theresa H. v. Dcs, D.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (explaining that if a parent believes reunification services are inadequate, it is incumbent on the parent to “promptly bring those concerns to the attention of the juvenile court, thereby giving that court a reasonable opportunity to address the matter and ensure that [DCS] was in compliance wi
  • Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Selena T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Selena T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Ct. 66(C); –77, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
  • Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Logan B. v. Dcs 422 P.3d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (explaining that a “parent’s failure to assert legitimate complaints in the juvenile court about the adequacy of services needlessly injects uncertainty and potential delay into the proceedings, when important rights and interests are at stake and timeliness is critical”).
  • Albert D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Albert D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (holding that a parent is precluded from challenging the diligent efforts finding on appeal when the parent does not object to the adequacy of the services in the superior court); ARCAP 13(a)(7)(B) (requiring appellant’s opening brief to cite portion of record “where the particular issue was
  • Vanessa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Vanessa W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Patrick G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Patrick G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -79, ¶¶ 16-18 (App. 2014), DCS cites no authority suggesting a parent can waive an objection to the nature and extent of reunification efforts separately required by ICWA, and we find none.
  • Eric R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Eric R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., -80, ¶ 21 (App. 2014) (finding that stability and permanency support a best interest finding).
  • Hannah B. v. Dcs, M.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Hannah B. v. Dcs, M.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (explaining that if a parent believes reunification services are inadequate, it is incumbent on the parent to “promptly bring those concerns to the attention of the juvenile court, thereby giving that court a reasonable opportunity to address the matter and ensure that [DCS] was in compliance wi
  • Wayne W., Patricia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wayne W., Patricia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jered W. v. Dcs, M.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jered W. v. Dcs, M.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (holding termination is in the child’s best interest if the child will benefit from the termination or will be harmed if the relationship continues); -4, ¶ 12 (2016) (holding a court should consider whether the current placement is meeting the
  • Candelaria P. v. Dcs, C.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Candelaria P. v. Dcs, C.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).
  • Joshua H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Joshua H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    3 As the superior court noted, parents must “voice their concerns about services to the juvenile court in a timely manner.” ¶ 16 (App. 2014).
  • Tomi M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lisa W. v. Dcs, K.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lisa W. v. Dcs, K.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (explaining that if the mother believed that services were inadequate, “it was incumbent on her to promptly bring those concerns to the attention of the juvenile court, thereby giving that court a reasonable opportunity to address the matter and ensure that [DCS] was in compliance with its oblig
  • Tomi M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sarah R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Sarah R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Odin S. v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Odin S. v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2014) (internal quotation omitted).
  • Mary C. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Mary C. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jessica M. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jessica M. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Vanessa P. v. Dcs, A.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Vanessa P. v. Dcs, A.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., -79, ¶¶ 10-18, -41 (App. 2014).
  • Mayra T. v. Dcs, C.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Mayra T. v. Dcs, C.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 8-537(B); –77, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
  • Kandyse A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kandyse A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., -79, ¶¶ 16, 18, -41 (App. 2014) (holding that a parent waived her claim that ADES did not make diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services by raising it for the first time on appeal); Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.