Cited by

See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).

This includes conditions of release and time “needed to complete parenting classes, counseling, and other services.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

Once released, Father will be on lifetime probation with sex offender conditions, and at minimum, will require reunification services before he could reunite with A.F.5 See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (recognizing a court may consider circumstances that could delay reunification after release, such as release conditions and the time needed for a parent to complete services after release).

See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

The “relevant period is the entire period of incarceration, not solely the time after entry of the termination order,” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2016), and the juvenile court may consider a parent’s anticipated release date, Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (recognizing the court may consider circumstances that could delay reunification after release, such as release conditions and the time needed for a parent to complete services 5 BERNARDINO P. v. DCS, J.P.

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

In addressing this factor, the juvenile court should “consider not only the parent-child relationship at the time the incarceration commences but also, how and whether that relationship may be maintained during the incarceration.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 13 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016) (noting that the court “may consider the possibility of early release”).

§ 8-533(B)(4) “focuses on the child’s needs during the incarceration and not solely on whether the parent would be able to continue the parent-child relationship.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

See Jeffrey P., -15, ¶¶ 7, 10, 13-14 (App. 2016) (affirming termination based on a 2.5-year sentence).

The focus is on whether the “child’s needs during the incarceration” are met, not “whether the parent would be able to continue the parent-child relationship after release.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (App. 2016).

¶ 14 (App. 2016) (quoting Maricopa Cty.

See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (App. 2016).

(citing Denise R., 221 Ariz. at 95, ¶ 10), bearing in mind that the focus is “on the child’s needs during the [parent’s] incarceration,” ¶ 14 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

The focus is on whether the “child’s needs during the incarceration” are met, not on “whether the parent would be able to continue the parent-child relationship after release.” ¶ 14 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).