Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, 650 P.2d 459.

119 citing documents.

In Re Dependency as to L.D. and O.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Action No. 5666-J, (finding speculative harm insufficient to support that a parent is not exercising parental care).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.M. and B.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.M. and B.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Dependency as to A.G. and J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Dependency as to A.G. and J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Matter of Appeal In Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, ” Father also argues the court erred by adopting that theory, which DCS presented in its written closing argument, “as one of its factual grounds for its severance finding.” Contrary to Father’s assertion, although the court noted that DCS had offered the “psychology of abuse” as support for severance, it
Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Toni T. v. Dcs, E.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Juliette F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Juliette F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Emily L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Emily L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Action No. 5666-J, in part because that court is “in the best position to weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of the parties, observe the parties, and make appropriate factual findings,” Pima Cnty.
Brianna R., Jordan M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brianna R., Jordan M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jacob S. v. Dcs, A.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jacob S. v. Dcs, A.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Francine C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Action No. 5666-J, (speculative risk is insufficient); Shella H., 239 Ariz. at 51, ¶ 16 (substantiated and unresolved threat); Pima County Juv.
Fernando G. v. Dcs, L.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fernando G. v. Dcs, L.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Morgan B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Morgan B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Action No. 5666–J, ("The permanency of termination dictates that it be resorted to in only the most extreme cases."); Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
Jose v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jose v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rene T. v. Cynthia C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rene T. v. Cynthia C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dawn S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dawn S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Aaron W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aaron W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Action No. 5666-J, (1982) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Amber H. v. Dcs, E Al. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Amber H. v. Dcs, E Al. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jeffrey T. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jeffrey T. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ray M. v. Dcs, L.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ray M. v. Dcs, L.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Joelle M. v. Dcs, L.M. 431 P.3d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Joelle M. v. Dcs, L.M. 431 P.3d 595 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Juvenile Action No. 5666-J, (recognizing in child dependency context that no “rigid definition” exists for “neglect” or “what is necessary” for a child’s well-being); In re Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-31853, (“The expression ‘neglect’ has no fixed meaning, but varies as the context of circumstances changes.”)
Robert A. v. Dcs, R.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Robert A. v. Dcs, R.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Action No. 5666– J, (indicating, albeit in the context of severance, that adjudications of permanency should be resorted to only in the most extreme cases).
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017