Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853, 501 P.2d 395.

29 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to R.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Juliette F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Juliette F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Navajo Nation v. Dep't of Child Safety 441 P.3d 982 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.”).
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
v. Superior Court, , (“The primary consideration in a dependency case is always the best interest of the child.”); see also In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853, , (“The welfare of the child is the prime consideration of a juvenile code.”).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Gerald F. 945 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Gerald F. 945 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-500200 788 P.2d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-500200 788 P.2d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
In Re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135 747 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135 747 P.2d 633 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See also In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853, , (“The welfare of a child is the prime consideration of a juvenile code.”).
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County 722 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1986
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County 722 P.2d 236 Ariz. 1986
In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
Just as “what is necessary” is not a rigid definition, neither is the definition of “neglect,” see In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853, , nor of “abuse.” The United States Supreme Court has consistently declared the significance of the family unit in American society.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-561 638 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-81405-S 594 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-81405-S 594 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
In Re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J —31853
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Clark v. Curran 575 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
In re Pima County, Juvenile Action No. J-31853
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111 543 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111 543 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-31853
LeRoy v. Odgers 503 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
LeRoy v. Odgers 503 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
In a recent decision handed down by this court, In Matter of Appeal in Pima County Juvemile Action No. J-31853, , we reversed a juvenile court adjudication of dependency.