Cited by

Opinion of the Court Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).

2 In making a best interests finding, however, the juvenile court must “evaluate the totality of the circumstances.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

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

neglect.” See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016).

The juvenile court considered Mother’s bond with her children, and did not “doubt that she loves the children and that the children love her.” The existence of a bond between biological family members, “although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).

“The existence and effect of a bonded relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

¶20 The existence of a bond between the parent and child, “although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

¶26 The existence of a bond between the parent and child, “although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Regardless, the circumstances do not warrant reversal; even if visits had been appropriate and enabled Father to foster a bond with Child, “[t]he existence and effect of a bonded relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

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

Id.; Dominque M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016); see Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Finally, “[t]he existence and effect of a bonded relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

Finally, “[t]he existence and effect of a bonded relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

¶ 28 (2017) (“The appellate court’s role is not to weigh the evidence.”); Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (“Mother is in essence asking us to reweigh the evidence presented to the juvenile court.

¶ 8 (App. 2016) (citing Maricopa Cty.

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

The existence of a bond between the parent and child is relevant but not dispositive, -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

4 BRANDON H. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court ¶11 The existence of a bond between the parent and child, “although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (severance beneficial when it makes child “eligible for adoption” and when child is “adoptable”).

But in light of the issues described above, “[t]he existence and effect of a bonded relationship between a biological parent and a child, although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

Dominque M., ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

This finding requires the juvenile court to consider the totality of the circumstances, ¶ 12 (App. 2016), and balances the parent's rights "against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe 3 AMBERLAYNE S. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court and stable home life," Kent K. v. Bobby M.