Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Anonymous v. Anonymous, 540 P.2d 741.

67 citing documents.

Yessica R., Efrain R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yessica R., Efrain R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (), and will reverse only if “as a matter of law, no reasonable fact-finder could have found the evidence satisfied the applicable burden of proof,” ¶ 15 (App. 2018) (citing Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep’t 4 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the cu
Brittany P., Andres G. v. Dcs, N.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Brittany P., Andres G. v. Dcs, N.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rebekah G. v. Katy C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Rebekah G. v. Katy C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Action No. JS-4374, (holding “the primary predicate” for a finding of abandonment is “whether there has been conduct on the part of the parent which shows a conscious disregard of the obligations which are owed by a parent to a child and which lead to destruction of the parent-child relationship”) ().
Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Luis T., Angelica T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249–50, ¶ 18, 995 P.2d at 685–86
Jose M. v. Eleanor J. 316 P.3d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Jose M. v. Eleanor J. 316 P.3d 602 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
act there were no parents involved in the dependency, Bechtel noted “‘courts should bend over backwards, if possible, to maintain the natural ties of birth,’ ” and grandparents “should be allowed to intervene in the dependency process unless a specific showing is made that the best interest of the child would not be served thereby.” 150 Ariz. at 73, 722 P.2d at 241 ( , ).
Raymond F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 231 P.3d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Raymond F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 231 P.3d 377 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Thus, on appeal we review the juvenile court’s findings of fact for clear error, , and view the evidence in the light most favorable to affirming its decision.
Donald W. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 159 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Donald W. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 159 P.3d 65 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Grace Howard Allen v. Ades and T.S.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Grace Howard Allen v. Ades and T.S.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
As the Bechtel court stated: “It has been repeatedly emphasized that ‘courts should bend over backwards, if possible, to maintain the natural ties of birth.’” 150 Ariz. at 73, 722 P.2d at 241
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 995 P.2d 682 Ariz. 2000
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 979 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 979 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Indeed, severance “is a serious matter and courts should bend over backwards, if possible, to maintain the natural ties of birth.” Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274, , ( , ).
Father in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487 v. Adam 876 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Pima Cty. Juv. Severance Action 876 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1994
Father in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487 v. Adam 876 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1994
Matter of Pima Cty. Juv. Severance Action 876 P.2d 1121 Ariz. 1994
See In re Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520, , In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-139
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501568 869 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-501568 869 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487 881 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487 881 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
2 The juvenile court relied on Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274, su pra> and what the minor has referred to as the “settled purpose” standard, that is, whether there has been intentional conduct on the part of the parent “which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 804 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1990
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-500274 804 P.2d 730 Ariz. 1990
534, 537 , (termination of the parent-child relationship should not be considered a panacea but should be resorted to only when concerted efforts to preserve the relationship fails); , *5 (severance is a serious matter and courts should “bend over backwards,” if possible, to maintain the natural ties of birth); In re Adoption of Hyatt, 24 Ariz.App.
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2698 806 P.2d 892 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
149 , 58 L.Ed.2d 150 (1978)
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2710 790 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-2710 790 P.2d 307 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
§ 8-533(B)(l), the evidence must establish “intentional conduct on the part of a parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520 756 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6520 756 P.2d 335 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
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
It has been repeatedly emphasized that “courts should bend over backwards, if possible, to maintain the natural ties of birth.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-1607 709 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1985
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-1607 709 P.2d 871 Ariz. 1985
To find abandonment under this statute requires evidence of “intentional conduct on the part.of a parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.”
In re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-1607 708 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
In re the Appeal in Pima County Severance Action No. S-1607 708 P.2d 769 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
§ 8-533, the evidence must show “intentional *91 conduct on the part of a parent which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the child.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4374 667 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4374 667 P.2d 1345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-1182 666 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-1182 666 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Anonymous v. *433 Anonymous, P.2d 741 (1975).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 656 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529 656 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
The appropriate test of abandonment is “whether there has been conduct on the part of the parent which implies a conscious disregard of the obligations owed by a parent to the child, leading to the destruction of the parent-child relationship.” Matter of Juvenile Action No. S-624, , Anonymous
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4283 653 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982