DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jeffrey P. v. Department of Child Safety, 368 P.3d 312.

74 citing documents.

  • Andray L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Andray L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).
  • Donald O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Donald O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (App. 2016).
  • Juan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Juan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “The inquiry under § 8-533(B)(4), however, 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 after release.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 14 (App. 2016).
  • Chase M. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Chase M. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    While the juvenile court may consider early release terms, “[n]o authority requires the court to presume an early release.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • Augustin C. v. Dcs, E.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Augustin C. v. Dcs, E.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (affirming a juvenile court’s severance order, although father was released from prison at the time of the appeal, and calculating the time of incarceration pursuant to § 8-533(B)(4) as the entire time of incarceration, not just the time after DCS filed a severance petition).
  • Angelina D. v. Dcs, D.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Angelina D. v. Dcs, D.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jessica S. v. Dcs, T.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jessica S. v. Dcs, T.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 8 (App. 2016) ("No authority requires the court to presume an early release.").
  • Janice J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Janice J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    § 8-533(B), Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12, and upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child, ¶ 5 (App. 2016).
  • Corey C. v. Dcs, B.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Corey C. v. Dcs, B.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kayoma S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kayoma S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    DISCUSSION ¶13 “The right to custody of one’s child[ren] is fundamental, but it is not absolute.” Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 5 (App. 2016) (citing Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Leila S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Leila S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Patrick F. v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Patrick F. v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Jeffrey P. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶15 (App. 2016) (“Nothing in this Opinion should be taken to mean that a sentence of 2.5 years, as a matter of law, will suffice to support severance pursuant to § 8– 533(B)(4).”) But we disagree that a decision affirming the juvenile court's decision in this case would justify termination based on any length of