Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona State Department of Public Welfare v. Barlow, 296 P.2d 298.

76 citing documents.

Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kasey A. v. Dcs, O.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Kasey A. v. Dcs, O.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Emily B., Andrew D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Emily B., Andrew D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D. 444 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D. 444 P.3d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Because the child has attained a favored, beneficent status in our social and legal systems does not detract from the well-settled rule that the right of parents to the custody of minor children is both a natural and a legal right.”).
Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Brenda D. v. Department of Child Safety 393 P.3d 930 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety 353 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety 353 P.3d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
¶17 DCS maintains protection of the child is the sole objective of a dependency proceeding.
In Re Priscilla S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Priscilla S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Department of Child Safety v. Beene 332 P.3d 47 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
see also Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc.
Bob H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic SEC. 237 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Manuel M. v. Ades, Leila M., Alayena M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
(“hearing” in custody proceeding necessarily includes right to be represented by counsel); In re Maricopa County Juv.
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 173 P.3d 463 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
John M. v. Ades, Shannon M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
John M. v. Ades, Shannon M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
6 ¶11 our supreme court held the denial of a parent’s request to be represented by retained counsel in a dependency hearing violated due process, and Division One of this court has relied on Barlow to conclude that appointment of counsel in a severance proceeding is not merely required by
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Denise H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 972 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Denise H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 972 P.2d 241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
§ 8-225(B), and the Due Process Clause, , Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-64016, , not the Sixth Amendment.
Arizona State Board of Regents v. Arizona State Personnel Board 953 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona State Board of Regents v. Arizona State Personnel Board 953 P.2d 904 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
As to her charge that due process is violated because of the restrictions on representation by counsel
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. JV95000239 921 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Delinquency Action No. JV95000239 921 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 889 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County 889 P.2d 39 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Berlat 707 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1985
State v. Berlat 707 P.2d 303 Ariz. 1985
In re Maricopa County Appeal No. J-68100 v. Haire
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-1182 666 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-1182 666 P.2d 532 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Superior Court 661 P.2d 1133 Ariz. 1983
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Superior Court 661 P.2d 1133 Ariz. 1983
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961 660 P.2d 479 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
In Re the Appeal in Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J 650 P.2d 459 Ariz. 1982
We have stated that “[b]ecause the child has attained a favored beneficient status in our social and legal systems does not detract from the well-settled rule that the right of parents to the custody of minor children is both a natural and legal right.”
In Re the Appeal in Gila County Juvenile Action No. J-3824 637 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1981
HML v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
H. M. L. v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
HML v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
H. M. L. v. State 641 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981