DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Oscar F. v. Dcs, E.F., M.f, C. F. G.F. and L.F., 330 P.3d 1023.

25 citing documents.

  • In Re Dependency as to S.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    See Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2014) (citing cases).
  • Joan G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • Joan G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    ¶22 We review a dependency order for an abuse of discretion, Louis C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (App. 2015), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the juvenile court’s findings, Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).
  • Robert Z., Susan. v. Dcs, A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Robert Z., Susan. v. Dcs, A.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Dependency Action No. 93511, we will affirm a dependency adjudication unless no reasonable evidence supports it, Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).
  • Juliette F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Juliette F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2014).
  • Angela P. v. Dcs, D.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Angela P. v. Dcs, D.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Accordingly, this court will affirm a dependency adjudication “unless no reasonable evidence supports it.” Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 6 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).
  • Jasmine H. v. Brian H., B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Jasmine H. v. Brian H., B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    As the trier of fact, the juvenile court “is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 13 (App. 2014) (quoting Ariz. Dep’t Econ.
  • Adam W. v. Tori F., T.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Adam W. v. Tori F., T.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶7 As the trier of fact, the juvenile court is in the “best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.” Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 13 (App. 2014).
  • Lenore S. v. Dcs, S.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Lenore S. v. Dcs, S.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –68 ¶ 6, –25 (App. 2014).
  • Penny R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Penny R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, –68 ¶ 6, –25 (App. 2014).
  • Angela B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Angela B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Oscar F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, –68 ¶ 6, –25 (App. 2014).
  • Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Maria J. v. Dcs, R.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    See Oscar F. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, n.5, ¶ 11, n.5 (App. 2014) (holding that this court need not consider one reason for a dependency if sufficient evidence supports another).
  • Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Eddie B. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Oscar F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, –68 ¶ 6, –25 (App. 2014).
  • Michael T. v. Dcs, N.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Michael T. v. Dcs, N.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Oscar F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Child Safety, –68 ¶ 6, –25 (App. 2014).