Cited by

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

1369 citing documents.

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
Rachael A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rachael A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-537(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Trung N. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); see also Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Lucia D. v. Dcs, R.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Felisha L. v. Dcs, D.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Felisha L. v. Dcs, D.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lucia D. v. Dcs, R.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-533(B)(2) (2019); ¶ 22 (2005) (court must find clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground).
Aragon v. Eulate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aragon v. Eulate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶7 Given the fundamental right to parent at stake here, ¶ 24 (2005) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982), and Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jaime Q. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jaime Q. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Amber H. v. Dcs, E Al. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Amber H. v. Dcs, E Al. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§§ 8-533(B), -537(B); -82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).
Wiley A. v. Dcs, K.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wiley A. v. Dcs, K.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ct. 66(C); ¶ 41 (2005), but Father does not argue insufficient evidence supports this finding.
Norman S. v. Dcs, N.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Christopher H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Norman S. v. Dcs, N.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Christopher H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 249, ¶ 12, and, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination is in the best interests of the child, ¶ 41 (2005).
Desiree A., Donovan J. v. Dcs, D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Desiree A., Donovan J. v. Dcs, D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Mario G. v. Dcs, E.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Kent K. v. Bobby M ., , 284 ¶ 24, , 1018 (2005) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 , 753-54, 102 S.Ct.
Mario G. v. Dcs, E.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Daniel S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Daniel S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michelle H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michelle H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael F. v. Ashley B., O.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael F. v. Ashley B., O.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-537(B) (2019); - 82, ¶ 7 (2005).
Megan E. v. Dcs, H.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
state/ador v. Wendtland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
state/ador v. Wendtland Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Megan E. v. Dcs, H.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sharece N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sharece N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-82, ¶ 7 (2005); Maricopa Cty.
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019