Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dominique M. v. Department of Child Safety, 376 P.3d 699.

287 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to P.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Y.G. and Y.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Y.G. and Y.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to W.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to W.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
at 150-51, ¶ 13; Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Lisa R. v. Dcs, A.H., W.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Lisa R. v. Dcs, A.H., W.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Casey G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Casey G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).
Malay'ja D. v. Dcs, Z.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Malay'ja D. v. Dcs, Z.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
But that interest is diminished "once a determination of unfitness has been made," Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 151, ¶ 15, and can be overcome by other factors favoring termination, -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
Felicia S., Robert S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Felicia S., Robert S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Nina v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nina v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at ¶ 15 (considering a parent's rehabilitation efforts); ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (considering how the continued presence of a statutory ground may negatively affect a child).
Margaret P. v. Dcs, V.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Margaret P. v. Dcs, V.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Action No. JS-501904, (DCS “need not show that it has a specific adoption plan before terminating a parent’s rights” but “must show that the [child is] adoptable.”); see also Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (“[I]t is well established that [a child’s] ‘adoptable’ status is a benefit that may, in consideration with other factors, support the ‘best interests’ finding.”).
Andri K. v. Russell J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Andri K. v. Russell J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).
Adam C., Kalynn R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Adam C., Kalynn R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Alma S. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 1 (2018) (citation omitted); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶¶ 10–12 (App. 2016).
Michael O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Michael O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Action No. JS–501904, (stating that the Department “need not show that it has a specific adoption plan before terminating a parent’s rights,” but must “show that the children are adoptable”); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (a child may be adoptable despite no current adoptive plan).
Shelly W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Shelly W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
Kiara D. v. Rudy N., R.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kiara D. v. Rudy N., R.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at 150-51, ¶ 13; Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016); Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Toren C., Fawn W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Toren C., Fawn W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (stating that “adoptable” status despite no adoptive plan is a benefit that may, in consideration with other factors, support the “best interests” finding).
Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
at 150– 51 ¶ 13; see also Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99 ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (noting that bonding between a child and biological parent is a factor but not dispositive in a best-interests analysis).
Erin S. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Erin S. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Id.; ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (explaining that mother’s claim DCS failed to show termination was in the children’s best interests because she shared a bond with her children improperly sought to have appellate court reweigh evidence).
Kansas H., Daniel Z. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kansas H., Daniel Z. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11 (App. 2016) (explaining “it is well established that ‘adoptable’ status is a benefit that may, in consideration with other factors, support the ‘best interests’ finding”).
Bernardino v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Bernardino v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150-51, ¶ 13; Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2016); Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Naomi G. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stacy R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Naomi G. v. Dcs, A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Stacy R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
Steven H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tiffany W. v. Dcs, K.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tiffany W. v. Dcs, K.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 47, ¶ 8; ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (explaining that mother’s claim that DCS failed to show termination was in the children’s best interests because she shared a bond with her children improperly sought to have this appellate court reweigh evidence).