Cited by

258 Ariz. at 553, ¶ 38 (Catlett, J., concurring); -85, ¶ 25 (2005) (The clear and convincing evidence standard requires “the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” (quotation omitted)).

§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).

Sec., ¶ 12 (2000); ¶ 41 (2005).

¶10 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (describing interest of parents in care, custody, and control of their children as oldest of fundamental liberty interests).

§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).

and A.R., the court was required to “presume” that Father’s interests and those of the children “diverge,” ¶ 35 (2005), and could not properly “subordinate the interests of [the children] to those of the parent,” see Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 151, ¶ 15.

Sec., ¶ 12 (2000), and by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child, ¶ 41 (2005).

Sec., ¶ 12 (2000), and by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child, ¶ 41 (2005).

§ 8-537(B); ¶ 22 (2005).

¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

¶21 “At the best-interests stage of the analysis, ‘we can presume that the interests of the parent and child diverge because the court has already found the existence of one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.’” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (2018) ( ¶ 35 (2005)).

Clear and convincing evidence is a “heightened standard of proof [] indicat[ing] that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” –85, ¶ 25 (2005) (cleaned up).

¶ 24 (2005) (citation omitted).

et al. Decision of the Court because the court has already found the existence of one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.” Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 12 (2018) ( ¶ 35 (2005)).

¶ 25 (2005) (explaining that the preponderance standard “essentially allocates the risk 4 LAZORCAK v. LAZORCAK Decision of the Court of error equally between the parties involved”).

Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (2018); ¶ 22 (2005).

See Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 8 (2018); ¶ 42 (2005) (applying standard to a private termination action).