Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rita J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 1 P.3d 155.

59 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to E.M. and D.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Sec., ¶ 5 (App. 2000) (citation omitted).
Joan G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Joan G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (termination order renders a dependency finding moot); see also A.R.S.
Kara B. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kara B. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sec., (“[T]he findings made after a permanency hearing will be subsumed by a severance proceeding, should one follow, or by some other permanent resolution of the dependency action.”).
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Fiona T. v. Dcs, S.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Emerald M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Emerald M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2000), and Mother points to no irregularities in the dependency proceeding.
Shea G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shea G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (noting that after a severance has been entered, an appeal from a dependency finding is moot).
Brianna R., Jordan M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brianna R., Jordan M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (stating that even if an order entered after a permanency planning hearing was appealable, the appeal would essentially be rendered moot due to a later order terminating parental rights); ¶ 5 (App. 2012) (“[W]e will dismiss an appeal as moot when ou
Fateama M. v. Dcs, J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Fateama M. v. Dcs, J.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 10 (App. 2000) (otherwise appealable order from permanency hearing essentially moot due to later order terminating parental rights), and divests Mother of standing to challenge J.W.’s placement and the post-termination 1 Mother moved for another extension of time to file her reply brief.
Jessicah C. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jessicah C. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 7 (App. 2011 (quoting Rita J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec., ¶ 2 (App. 2000)).
Silvino L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Silvino L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-861 and Rule 59, which is to “expedit[e] the process of finding permanent placement for children.” ¶ 10 (App. 2000).
Rick R. v. Dcs, H.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rick R. v. Dcs, H.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Christian S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Christian S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (“[T]he final order in a delinquency action is the disposition order.”) (citing Maricopa Cty.
Diamond H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Diamond H. v. Dcs, J.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Tien F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Tien F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (“[T]he final order in a delinquency action is the disposition 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of rules and statutes.
In Re Jelohera J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Jelohera J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 3 (App. 2000) (“[T]he final order in a delinquency action is the disposition order.”) (citing Maricopa Cty.
Tabitha S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tabitha S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 4 (App. 2000) (orders declaring a child dependent are final and appealable).
Jessica M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jessica M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sec., ¶ 10, (allegedly deficient order from permanency hearing essentially moot due to order terminating parental rights).
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 352 P.3d 909 Ariz. 2015
Roberto F. v. Department of Child Safety 352 P.3d 909 Ariz. 2015
Sec., –14 ¶ 5, –57 (2000); see also A.R.S.
Joseph F. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Joseph F. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Sec., ¶ 10, (otherwise appealable order from permanency hearing essentially moot due to later order terminating parental rights); Vinson v. Marton & Assocs., (when circumstances in a case change to the extent that a reviewing court’s action woul
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Lisa K. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 281 P.3d 1041 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Sec., -57 (App. 2000) (§ 8-862 adopted to comply with federal law to enable timely permanency proceedings).
Francisco F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 266 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Francisco F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 266 P.3d 1075 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Williams v. Williams 264 P.3d 870 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Sec., ¶ 8 , (citations omitted) (holding that orders entered after a permanency hearing determining future course of dependency action are not appealable).
Kenneth T. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 128 P.3d 773 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by