Cited by

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

1357 citing documents.

Jena H. v. Todd H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8- 533(B); ¶ 41 (2005).
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Paul v. Dana B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶19 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶ 24, (citations omitted).
Keosha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jimmie G., Sally G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Keosha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jimmie G., Sally G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Justin M. v. April M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Justin M. v. April M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (2005) (only one statutory ground necessary to satisfy § 8-533).
Tasha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tasha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Sec., ¶ 12 (2000), and by a preponderance of the evidence that severance is in the best interests of the child, ¶ 41 (2005).
Thomas A. v. Samantha A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Thomas A. v. Samantha A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 9 (2005) (only one statutory ground necessary to satisfy § 8-533).
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jayna S. v. Dcs, X.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jayna S. v. Dcs, X.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joel M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Ct. 66(C); ¶ 41 (2005).7 The conclusion must be supported by specific findings of fact in support of termination.
Andres M., Robert M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Andres M., Robert M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8-533(B)(8)(c); ¶ 22 (2005) (clear and convincing evidence standard).
Tony J. v. Dcs, A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Maurice N. v. Dcs, M.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tony J. v. Dcs, A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Maurice N. v. Dcs, M.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Donovan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Donovan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
James P. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
James P. v. Dcs, J.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Floyd R. v. Dcs, S.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Floyd R. v. Dcs, S.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005) (interpreting A.R.S.
Joshua W. v. Dcs, F.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Decision of the Court 279, 284, ¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jurnee H. v. Dcs, N.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Emily S. v. Dcs, G.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Emily S. v. Dcs, G.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Corey C. v. Dcs, B.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Traci E. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Corey C. v. Dcs, B.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8-533(B), Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12, and upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child, ¶ 22 (2005).
Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Philip P., Katherine J. v. Dcs, V.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§§ 8-533(B), -537(B); -82, ¶ 7 (2005).
Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Phyllicia C. v. Dcs, M.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jeremy M. v. Dcs, J.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tabatha T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶17 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 5 TABATHA T. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jeremy M. v. Dcs, J.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶11 Father takes issue with the juvenile court’s reliance on Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-8441, ( ¶ 12 (2005)), for the court’s conclusion that Father’s inconsistent participation in services for a special needs child can constitute the circumstances causing the out-of-home placement.
Phyllicia C. v. Dcs, M.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Thomas M. v. Dcs, E.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Thomas M. v. Dcs, E.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Chastity S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by