Cited by

Sec., ¶ 12 n.3 (App. 2005), and requires the state to “provide a parent with the time and opportunity to participate in programs designed to improve the parent’s ability to care for the child,” Mary Ellen C. v. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005); A.R.S.

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (identifying reunification efforts as a requirement for terminating parental rights based on chronic substance abuse); Raymond F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (citations omitted).

Sec., or under § 8-533(B)(4) based on incarceration, Jessie D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶¶ 20-21 (2021).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (requiring court finding about DCS’s reasonable efforts to reunify).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (citing Mary Ellen C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (history of chronic substance abuse).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (“[T]he [superior] court must also have found that [DCS] had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family or that such efforts would have been futile.”) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2005) (explaining that “the juvenile court must also have found that [DCS] had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family or that such efforts would have been futile.”) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2005) (“Though Jennifer might be unlikely to prevail at a trial on the merits, ADES was not entitled to summary judgment because material issues of fact could not be resolved without credibility determinations and weighing of evidence, matters peculiarly and exclusively for a trier of fact.”).