Cited by

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

1357 citing documents.

Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Consequently, “[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.”
Sara R. v. Jeremy R., C.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Sara R. v. Jeremy R., C.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8-537(B); –82, ¶ 7 (2005).
Erik T. v. Dcs, S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Erik T. v. Dcs, S.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jose N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Roberto A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tiana S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Tiana S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
She also argues termination was not in the Children’s best interests.2 ¶5 A parent’s parental rights can be terminated when a juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a statutory ground to support the termination, - 82, ¶ 7, -16 (2005), and by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the children.
Jose N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶6 A parent has a constitutional right to raise his or her children, see Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982), but that right is not absolute, ¶ 24
Roberto A. v. Dcs 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.
Nicholas P. v. Dcs, S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholas P. v. Dcs, S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
¶15 “In a best interests inquiry, however, 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.” ¶ 35, see also In re Maricopa Cty.
Johanna K. v. Dcs, R.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Johanna K. v. Dcs, R.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Shanna M. v. Dcs, P.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Shanna M. v. Dcs, P.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Anthony P. v. Dcs, B.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 363 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Gila River Indian Community v. Department of Child Safety 363 P.3d 148 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Anthony P. v. Dcs, B.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Justin C. v. Dcs, S.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kimberlee K. v. Dcs, I.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Justin C. v. Dcs, S.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kimberlee K. v. Dcs, I.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Marlon R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Marlon R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
be harmed in any manner by spending some time with Father as he participated in services.” ¶6 Before terminating parental rights, the superior court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that severance is in the children’s best interests and must state “how the child[ren] would benefit from a severance or be harmed by the continuation of the relationship.” Maricopa Cty.
Samantha M., Nykkolas S. v. Dcs, K.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vanessa D. v. Dcs, V.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Samantha M., Nykkolas S. v. Dcs, K.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vanessa D. v. Dcs, V.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Precious B. v. Dcs, J.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Precious B. v. Dcs, J.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
David H. v. Dcs, T.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
David H. v. Dcs, T.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vanetta H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Vanetta H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jon D., Kristie W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Kemp v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Kemp v. Kemp Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 14, 3 I. Appellate Jurisdiction ¶10 As an initial matter, Kevin suggests we lack jurisdiction of the appeal because Terri did not file an amended notice of appeal from the October 16, 2014 final judgment.
Ashlee W. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Ashlee W. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Tamarra P. v. Dcs, M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 41 (2005); 4 TAMARRA P. v. DCS, M.B.
Jonathan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jonathan L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§ 8–533(B) (Supp. 2014); ¶ 22
Catherine B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015