Cited by

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

316 citing documents.

Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2014) (“If Mother believed [DCS] was not making diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services at any point, it was incumbent on her to promptly bring those concerns to the attention of the juvenile court, .
Jeremy M. v. Dcs, J.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jeremy M. v. Dcs, J.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristi S. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristi S. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8-537(B); -77, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
Franswa C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Franswa C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (holding that a parent’s failure to question the adequacy of services in the juvenile court precludes such challenge on appeal).
Mandy P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mandy P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., -80, ¶¶ 19-20 (App. 2014) (explaining that a child’s best interests were served by severance when the child was not in an adoptive placement, but steps were being taken to permit her to be placed in an adoptive home).
Jennifer M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jennifer M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶¶ 12–13 (App. 2014) (DCS’s obligation to provide “appropriate reunification services” does not relieve 4 JENNIFER M. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court participate in urinalysis testing.
Ryan W. v. Dcs, J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ryan W. v. Dcs, J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., -77, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
Nona P. v. Charles W., E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nona P. v. Charles W., E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 18, (mother who did not object in the juvenile court to ADES’s efforts to provide reunification services waived argument on appeal; failure to raise objection prevented juvenile court from addressing mother’s concerns).
Tiffany M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tiffany M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., –77, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
Forrest C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Joseph W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Forrest C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., -77, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
Joseph W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
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., –79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014).
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., -80, ¶ 21 (App. 2014) (finding that stability and permanency support a best interests finding).
Michelle H. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michelle H. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shawn B. v. Dcs, S.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Shawn B. v. Dcs, S.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶¶ 20-21 (App. 2014) (determining that the benefits of permanency and stability supported best interests finding); see also Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jessica N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jessica N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Trevor H., Jamie W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Trevor H., Jamie W. v. Dcs, L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., (when juvenile court record shows ADES has been ordered to provide specific services in furtherance of case plan, and court finds ADES made reasonable efforts to provide such services (including a finding that ADES made diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services p
Derek M. v. Dcs, M.M., D.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Derek M. v. Dcs, M.M., D.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 2014) (absent an objection to the type or manner of services, parent waives the right to challenge the adequacy of reunification services on appeal).
Jessica H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessica H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Terisa C., Lawrence E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Terisa C., Lawrence E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶¶ 17–18, (noting that parent waived right to challenge the Department’s reasonable efforts to provide family reunification services when the parent failed to raise the argument at the review hearings or at the termination hearing).
Andrew B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Andrew B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶18, (noting it is “incumbent” on parent to raise with superior court concerns about reunification services).
Manuel W. v. Dcs, M.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessica H. v. Dcs, X.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Manuel W. v. Dcs, M.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., -79, ¶¶ 15-16 (App. 2014).
Jessica H. v. Dcs, X.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., -79, ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (noting that parents must “voice their concerns about services” in a “timely manner” and failing to do so precludes arguing on appeal that services were inadequate).4 ¶11 Mother next argues the juvenile court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory gr
Jerry P. v. Dcs, A.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jerry P. v. Dcs, A.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kelly B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kelly B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., -77, ¶ 9, -39 (App. 2014).