Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kent K. v. Bobby M., 110 P.3d 1013.

1357 citing documents.

Adam W. v. Tori F., T.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 8–537(B), and by a preponderance of evidence that termination is in a child’s best interests, ¶ 41 (2005).
Richard P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Richard P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12.
Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Troy C. v. Dcs, J.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Troy C. v. Dcs, J.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶10 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶ 24 (2005).
Faith P. v. Dcs, L.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Decision of the Court maintaining parental rights.” ¶ 37 (2005).
Rene T. v. Cynthia C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Octavio G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Rene T. v. Cynthia C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Octavio G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jessi N., Ryan J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Jessi N., Ryan J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 41 (2005); see also Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Dawn S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Dawn S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
DISCUSSION ¶8 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶ 24, (2005) (citations omitted).
Yessica R., Efrain R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Yessica R., Efrain R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 8-533(B)(8)(a); ¶ 42 (2005).
Shawna N., John N. v. Dcs, H.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shad C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shawna N., John N. v. Dcs, H.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Shad C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Silvino L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Silvino L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
288, ¶¶ 1, 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
Selina Z. v. Dcs, D.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Samantha A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Selina Z. v. Dcs, D.Z. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Samantha A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8- 533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Shaquita H. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shaquita H. v. Dcs, A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Decision of the Court ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶9 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶ 24 (2005).
Matthew F. v. Gabrielle N., R.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Matthew F. v. Gabrielle N., R.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.
Samantha J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Serah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Samantha J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Serah E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8–533(B)(8)(c); ¶ 41 (2005).
Miriam F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Miriam F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§§ 8-533(B), -537(B); -82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).
Jessie D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nathan T. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Krystle M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Nathan T. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); ¶ 12 (2000).
Krystle M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); see also Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jessie D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-537(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Rodriguez v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rodriguez v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶9 “Evidence is clear and convincing if it makes ‘the thing to be proved highly probable or reasonably certain.’” ¶ 39 (App. 2013) (-85, ¶ 25 (2005)).
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Hart v. Biederbeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Clear and convincing evidence “reflects a heightened standard of proof that indicates that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” –85 ¶ 25 (2005) (citation omitted).
Darrell S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Darrell S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“Clear and convincing” means the grounds for termination are “highly probable or reasonably certain.” -85, ¶ 25 (2005).
Trung N. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by