Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite James S. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 972 P.2d 684.

98 citing documents.

Michael Y. v. Dcs, C.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael Y. v. Dcs, C.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 1998) (citation omitted).
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Lali v. v. Dcs, A.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 1998)) (emphasis added).
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 1998)).
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
Jessica H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessica H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 18, (App. 1998).
Jessica E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessica E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 18 (App. 1998) (noting that finding termination is in a child’s best interests requires “either that the child will benefit from the termination of the relationship or that the child would be harmed by continuation of the relationship.”).
Jessica H. v. Dcs, X.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessica H. v. Dcs, X.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Juan P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Juan P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶18, 5Given this conclusion, this court need not address whether the superior court also properly terminated Father’s parental rights based on a finding of substance abuse.
Tina T. v. Department of Child Safety 339 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Tina T. v. Department of Child Safety 339 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sec., ¶ 18, (stating that the juvenile court must find that the “child will benefit from termination of the relationship or that the child would be harmed by continuation of the parental relationship”).
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Megan M., Dustin J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Chaine M. v. Pamela R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Chaine M. v. Pamela R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robert P. v. Dcs, L.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Robert P. v. Dcs, L.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Raegina M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Raegina M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lloyd B., Tina M. v. Ades, L.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lloyd B., Tina M. v. Ades, L.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Mario G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 257 P.3d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Mario G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 257 P.3d 1162 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Christina G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 256 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Christina G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 256 P.3d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Matthew L. 225 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Matthew L. 225 P.3d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
2 ADES argues Matthew’s anticipated release date was irrelevant evidence based on our court’s ¶ 8 , , 354 n. 3, ¶ 12, , 687 n. 3 (App.1998).
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 224 P.3d 950 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy C. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 153 P.3d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sec., -56, ¶¶ 16-17 , -89 (App.1998) (finding that a father’s 5.5-year prison term warranted severance given the factual circumstances).
James H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 106 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
James H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 106 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 7 , 354 n. 4, , 687 n. 4 (App.1998), that there was no reunification obligation on the Department when the cause of severance was the length of a parent’s prison sentence.
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Oscar O. 100 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Oscar O. 100 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Sec., P.2d 684 (App. 1998); In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520, P.2d 4 335 (App. 1988) (best interests of child in potentially foster-adoptive home favored severance so child could be free for adoption); In re Maricopa County Juvenil
Jesus M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 53 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Jesus M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 53 P.3d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Sec., ¶¶ 15-17 , ¶¶ 15-17 (App.1998) (father’s 5.5-year sentence, begun when child was six months old and with more than three years remaining, was of sufficient length to satisfy § 8—533(B)(4) under circumstances of that case); In re Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-9104, -60 , 904 P.