Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Sands v. Sands, 757 P.2d 126.

27 citing documents.

Flaigan v. Kittelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Flaigan v. Kittelson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Latoya P. v. Dcs, K.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Latoya P. v. Dcs, K.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec., -71, ¶ 2 (App. 2009) ( A.R.S.
Demetrice H. v. Dcs, D.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Demetrice H. v. Dcs, D.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(“It is clear that once the order of severance was issued, the father’s standing as a parent terminated.”); Antonio M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Matthew C. v. Dcs, M.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., -71, ¶ 2 (App. 2009); ("[O]nce the order of severance was issued, the father's standing as a parent terminated.").
Jason O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jason O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
–71, 3 JASON O. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court ¶ 2 (App. 2009); (“[O]nce the order of severance was issued, the father’s standing as a parent terminated.”); ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (juvenile court does not “weigh alternative placement possibilities” in the best-interests analysis).
Kristi S. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristi S. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Erik T. v. Dcs, S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erik T. v. Dcs, S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8-539 (2016) ("An order terminating the parent-child relationship shall divest the parent and the child of all legal rights, privileges, duties and obligations[.]"); ("[O]nce the order of severance was issued, the father's standing as a parent terminated.").
Antonio M. v. Ades and Daniel M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Antonio M. v. Ades and Daniel M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sheehan v. Flower 170 P.3d 288 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 18 , (“ Dodge I") ("Under the common law, grandparents had no legal rights to visitation with their grandchildren.”); , (“Prior to the enactment of grandparent visitation statutes, grandparents had no legal rights to visitation with their grandchildren.”).
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Graville v. Dodge 985 P.2d 604 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JA-502394 925 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JA-502394 925 P.2d 738 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-5312 873 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JD-5312 873 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re Estate of Braa 442 N.W.2d 354 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
In Re the Marriage of Herreras 768 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
In Re the Marriage of Herreras 768 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
we held that the statute does not automatically terminate grandparents’ statutory visitation rights when a non-custodial parent’s parental rights are severed.