DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Department of Child Safety v. Beene, 332 P.3d 47.

72 citing documents.

  • Dcs v. Hon. duncan/juan P., S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Dcs v. Hon. duncan/juan P., S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Similarly, special action jurisdiction is proper when an appellate court is asked to address “the care and custody of a very young child.” accord Dep’t ¶ 6 (App. 2014).
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    See Dep’t –07, ¶¶ 12, 19 (App. 2014) (noting that severance trials are civil matters and parents have no federal or state constitutional right to confront witnesses and that the best interests of the child must be balanced with a parent’s right to due process).
  • Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Alvarado v. Thomson 375 P.3d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    1(a); Dep’t , 303 ¶¶ 6-7, (citing cases).
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State ex rel. Montgomery v. Padilla 364 P.3d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Although ‘highly discretionary,’ accepting special action jurisdiction is particularly appropriate where the welfare of children is involved and the harm complained of can only be prevented by resolution before an appeal.” Dep’ , 303 ¶ 6, (citations omitted).
  • K.D. v. Hoffman 359 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • K.D. v. Hoffman 359 P.3d 1022 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Hon. padilla/simcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Although ‘highly discretionary,’ accepting special action jurisdiction is particularly appropriate where the welfare of children is involved and the harm complained of can only be prevented by resolution before an appeal,” Dep’ ¶ 6, (citations omitted).
  • Aurora M. v. Dcs, B.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Aurora M. v. Dcs, B.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶15 “[C]onsideration of the child’s best interests permeates dependency and severance proceedings.” Dep’t ¶ 9, (citations omitted); Antonio P., 218 Ariz. at 404 ¶ 8, 187 P.3d at 1117.
  • Chereka v. Gadissa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Chereka v. Gadissa Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 8, (quoting Mario G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ.
  • E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • E.R. v. Department of Child Safety 344 P.3d 842 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Ct. 36; Dep’t ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
  • Alicia H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Alicia H. v. Dcs, C.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    On this record, it cannot be said that Mother failed to receive an “opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Dep’t ¶ 11, (citation and internal quotations omitted).
  • Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    –58, ¶ 45, –41 (2006); Dep’t ¶ 8