Cited by

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999) (emphasis added).

Sec., -92, ¶¶ 31, 34 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶¶ 34, 37 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶¶ 34, 37 (App. 1999); Maricopa Cnty.

Sec., ¶ 1 (App. 1999) (“It is well established that the State, before acting to terminate parental rights, has an affirmative duty to make all reasonable efforts to preserve the family relationship.” (citations omitted)).

Sec., ¶¶ 29-34 (App. 1999), and chronic substance abuse, Jennifer G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999), but it is not required to wait an indefinite period before requesting termination of parental rights, Maricopa Cnty.

Sec., ¶ 32 (App. 1999) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982)))).

Sec., –94, ¶¶ 43–44 (App. 1999) (reversing termination based on the State’s failure to make efforts to preserve the family, while acknowledging there was “abundant” evidence that termination would serve the child’s best interests).

Sec., ¶ 34 (App. 1999) (requiring "the State to undertake measures with a reasonable prospect of success" but not "measures that are futile").

Serv., ¶ 33 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶¶ 34, 37 (App. 1999).

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 37 (App. 1999)).

Father argues DCS needed to provide domestic violence counseling because DCS recommended it.

Sec., ¶¶ 34, 37 (App. 1999).