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.

  • Linda B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016).
  • Janice H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Janice H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Mongco T., Jack v. v. Dcs, J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Mongco T., Jack v. v. Dcs, J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
  • Catrina K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Catrina K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).
  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Dominique M. v. Dep't of Child Safety , , 98, ¶ 8, , 701 (App. 2016).
  • Mary C. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Mary C. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).
  • Lynda H. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Lynda H. v. Dcs, J.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    and had bonded; however, the existence of a bond is not determinative, see Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -99, ¶ 12 (App. 2016), and the evidence presented supported the determination that severance of Mother’s parental rights would provide J.S.
  • Jessica H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Jessica H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12
  • Janine E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Janine E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    We review the juvenile court’s termination order for an abuse of discretion and “will affirm the juvenile court’s factual findings if supported by reasonable evidence.” ¶ 6 (App. 2016); see also E.R., 237 Ariz. at 58, ¶ 9 (quoting Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Wilda M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Wilda M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    In evaluating whether severance is in a child’s best interest, the juvenile court is required to conduct the inquiry considering “the totality of the circumstances.” Dominque M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12
  • Rebekah G. v. Katy C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Rebekah G. v. Katy C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Action No. S- 114487, ); -99, ¶ 12 (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.”) (citing Bennigno R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
  • Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Martha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶15 To prove severance is in the Older Children’s best interests, the GAL was required to “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) (citing Maricopa Cty.
  • Charna F. v. Dcs, C.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Charna F. v. Dcs, C.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Decision of the Court Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016); A.R.S.
  • Kayoma S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kayoma S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (App. 2016) (noting severance is in a child’s best interests if the “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”) (citing Maricopa Cty.
  • Chastity S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Chastity S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    In evaluating whether severance is in a child’s best interest, the juvenile court is required to conduct the inquiry considering “the totality of the circumstances.” Dominque M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, _ ¶ 12
  • Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11, (continuance of conceded statutory grounds for severance supported juvenile court’s finding termination was in children’s bests interests).
  • Arianne B. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Arianne B. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8, (DCS must prove affirmative benefit or that severance eliminates a detriment if parental rights continue) (citations omitted).
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 7 (App. 2016); see also A.R.S.
  • Nona P. v. Charles W., E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Nona P. v. Charles W., E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Dominique M. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 11, (even absent an identified adoption placement juvenile court’s finding that current placement was in children’s best interests supported termination of mother’s parental rights) (citation omitted); Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.