Cited by

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).

See Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 148, ¶ 1; Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016).

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).

A bond between the parent and child is a factor to consider but “is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

DISCUSSION ¶6 A parent’s right to “the care, custody, and management of their child[] [is] fundamental, but not absolute.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -98, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).

See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99 ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (the existence of a parental bond with the child is a factor to consider but is not dispositive).

Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150–51 ¶ 13 (citing Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99 ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2016)).

See also Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (existence of bond not alone dispositive of best interests).

See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 1 (2018); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶¶ 10–11 (App. 2016).

“Although fundamental, parental rights are not inviolate.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety

See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 1 (2018); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99 ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016).

See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 1 (2018); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99 ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016).

Decision of the Court a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

at 150–51, ¶ 13 (“[C]ourts may consider the negative effect on a child of the continued presence of a statutory severance ground in a totality of the circumstances best-interests inquiry.” (quoting Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2016))); see also Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).

See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

“In proving severance is in the children’s best interests, DCS must show either that severance affirmatively benefits the children (such as showing they are adoptable or more stable in an existing placement), or eliminates a detriment to the children if the parent-child relationship is not severed.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).

See Demetrius L., 239 Ariz. at 3–4 ¶ 12 (explaining that in determining whether the child will benefit from termination, relevant factors include whether the current placement is meeting the child’s needs, an adoption plan is in place, and if the child is adoptable); see Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (noting that termination would make the children eligible for adoption, which shows that the children would benefit from the termination).

See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (severance “make[s] the Children eligible for adoption”).

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

Action No. S-2460, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (considering how the continued presence of a statutory ground may negatively affect a child).