Cited by

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

1369 citing documents.

Cynthia G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In a best interests inquiry, “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.” ¶ 15 (2016) ( ¶ 35 (2005)).
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Therefore, “[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in 5 MCLAUGHLIN v. JONES Opinion of the Court any other means of statutory interpretation.”
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8-537(B); –82, ¶ 7 (2005).
Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K. 380 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K. 380 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶¶ 24, 41, 1022 (2005); A.R.S.
Juan v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Juan v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Joseph W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Joseph W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mohammad K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mohammad K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8–533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Danielle J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Danielle J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 41 (App. 2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Armida E. v. Dcs, B.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Armida E. v. Dcs, B.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dominique M. v. Department of Child Safety 376 P.3d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dominique M. v. Department of Child Safety 376 P.3d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jerry J. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jerry J. v. Dcs, E.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dixie J. v. John S., A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Dixie J. v. John S., A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Decision of the Court Bobby M., ¶ 22 (2005).
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jodie F. v. Kyle Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jodie F. v. Kyle Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Carrie M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Carrie M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
James M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
James M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ct. 66(C); ¶ 41 (2005), but Father does not argue insufficient evidence supports this finding.
Jesus S. v. Dcs, B.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael R. v. Dcs, M.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Andrew G. v. Dcs, S.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael R. v. Dcs, M.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jesus S. v. Dcs, B.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Andrew G. v. Dcs, S.G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Erbey B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jennifer S. v. Dcs, Z.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erbey B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Ct. 66(C); ¶ 41 (2005), but Father does not argue insufficient evidence supports this finding.
Jennifer S. v. Dcs, Z.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Alvin S. v. Dcs, S.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Alvin S. v. Dcs, S.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Adrian E. v. Department of Child Safety 369 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Adrian E. v. Department of Child Safety 369 P.3d 264 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
“When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.”
Suzanne S. v. Dcs, F.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016