DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

287 citing documents.

  • Travis H. v. Dcs, A.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
  • Erin B. v. Jon F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Maria D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Erin B. v. Jon F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
  • Maria D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
  • Robert O. v. Mary B., A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Robert O. v. Mary B., A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • Juana C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Juana C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Mother argues Child would neither benefit from severance nor suffer from continuing the relationship with her because she loves Child and is willing to care for him “if she were taught the skills necessary to help [him].” ¶16 The existence of a bond with the parent, “although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Denisse P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Denisse P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Thus, “[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.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R., 233 Ariz. at 351, ¶ 30).
  • Eryca L. v. Dcs, R.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Eryca L. v. Dcs, R.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, Because we find reasonable evidence supports the court’s severance order under A.R.S.
  • Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    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).
  • Jacklyn D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Jacklyn D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶15 The existence of a bond between biological family members, “although a factor to consider, is not dispositive in addressing best interests.” ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 425 P.3d 1089 Ariz. 2018
  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 425 P.3d 1089 Ariz. 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99 ¶¶ 11–12 (App. 2016) (noting that courts 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).
  • Seth M. v. Arienne M. 426 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Seth M. v. Arienne M. 426 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • Summyr K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Summyr K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (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
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (severance “make[s] the Children eligible for adoption”).
  • Francisco v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Francisco v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • Demetric L. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Demetric L. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    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 and stable home life," Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 35.
  • Tara M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Cesar S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Tara M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t Child Safety, -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (“The existence and effect of a bonded relationship .
  • Cesar S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 10 (App. 2016) (severance “make[s] the Children eligible for adoption”).
  • Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Chase M. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Sean M., Mary K. v. Dcs, M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Chase M. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • Sean M., Mary K. v. Dcs, M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Mother ¶7 “Parental rights in the care, custody, and management of their children are fundamental, but not absolute.” Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016).
  • Brittany P., Andres G. v. Dcs, N.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Brittany P., Andres G. v. Dcs, N.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Monica v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Monica v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • C.D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Tzsiah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Linda B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Tzsiah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • C.D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Additionally, the mere “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, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).