Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Jennifer B. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 944 P.2d 68.

116 citing documents.

In Re Guardianship of J.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Guardianship of J.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Guardianship of L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Guardianship of L.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Guardianship as to J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Guardianship as to J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Guardianship as to E.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Guardianship as to E.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Guardianship of C.M. 549 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Re Guardianship of C.M. 549 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
In Re Guardianship of S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
In Re Guardianship of S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Sec., Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2019).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to G.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sec., viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s decision, Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
In Re Guardianship of P.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Guardianship of P.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sec., viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s decision, Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to C.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Termination of Parental Rights as to C.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Sec., and accept the court’s factual findings if reasonable evidence supports them, ¶ 9 (2016).
Jackson G., Elizabeth S. v. Dcs, J.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jackson G., Elizabeth S. v. Dcs, J.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Walter S. v. Elisa P., E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Walter S. v. Elisa P., E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec., and we will not reweigh the evidence unless no reasonable evidence supports the findings, see Jesus M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Maria G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Maria G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kayn C. v. Dcs, K.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Kayn C. v. Dcs, K.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Alisha B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Alisha B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Branden M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Branden M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jesse S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Jesse S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., –56 (App. 1997) (finding the purpose of the guardianship statute was primarily to provide “‘permanency in the custodial relationship’ of ‘older children who are not suitable candidates for adoption’” (quoting Ariz. House of Rep., H.B.2062, Minutes of the Judiciary Committee, Feb.
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Anna S., Michael T. v. Dcs, E.S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Anna S., Michael T. v. Dcs, E.S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shelby B., Tony T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shelby B., Tony T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Navajo Nation v. Dep't of Child Safety 441 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Navajo Nation v. Dep't of Child Safety 441 P.3d 982 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Raquel C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Raquel C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cf. Jennifer B. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec., (analogizing best interests requirement in revocation of guardianship to standard used in severance); Mother’s opening brief on appeal relied heavily on Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, which was later vacated by the Arizona S
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Because the superior court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts,” ¶ 4 (App. 2004), we view the facts in the light most favorable to affirming the superior court’s order “unless no reasonable evidence supports those findings,”