Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bennigno R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 312 P.3d 861.

168 citing documents.

Jessica L. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jessica L. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (“The juvenile court .
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., ¶ 23 (App. 2013); Maricopa Cnty.
Cristina G., Estevanico P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Cristina G., Estevanico P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 20 (App. 2013) (DCS “diligently provided appropriate and reasonable reunification services” where record showed that a parent “had not benefitted from the services and additional services would have been futile.”).
Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)).
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., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)).
Shad C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shad C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)).
Michael M. v. Anita P., M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael M. v. Anita P., M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013); see also Audra T. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Daniel S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Daniel S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 20 (App. 2013) (termination appropriate when parent has “not benefitted from the services and additional services would have been futile”).
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)), and a child will generally benefit from the opportunity for permanency in lieu of remaining with an unfit parent, see Oscar O., 209 Ariz. at 337, ¶ 16 (quoting JS-6520, 157 Ariz. at 243).
Brandon H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brandon H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)).
Shoshawna S. v. Dcs, K.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shoshawna S. v. Dcs, K.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (best-interests analysis considers “whether the current placement is meeting the child’s needs”).
Tasha M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tasha M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013); cf. A.R.S.
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. 438 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. 438 P.3d 259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 460 A.2d 1277, 1282 (Conn. 1983) (“The doctrines of preclusion .
Juana C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Juana C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)).
Denisse P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Denisse P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (quoting Maricopa Cty.
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state Ariz. 2019
Sec., ¶ 17 (App. 2013) (no issue preclusion of best-interest inquiry in second proceeding where new evidence was presented nearly a year after judge found severance would not be in child’s best interest).
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 30 (App. 2013)).
Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) 7 QUINTON V. v. DCS, A.V.
Martina M. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Martina M. v. Dcs, A.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stephanie M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Stephanie M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (quoting Maricopa Cty.
Donald O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Donald O. v. Dcs, C.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (juvenile court “may consider whether the current placement is meeting the child’s needs”).
Tara M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cesar S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Tara M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Cesar S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (best-interests analysis considers “whether the current placement is meeting the child’s needs”).
Breyana M. v. Dcs, J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Breyana M. v. Dcs, J.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Alan C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 30 (App. 2013) (the termination of parental rights affirmed despite evidence of children’s bond with parents).