Cited by

A juvenile court’s termination order must be supported by clear and convincing evidence or, in other words, evidence that makes the proposition to be proved “‘highly probable or reasonably certain.’” -19 (2005), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 577 (7th ed. 1999).

§ 8-533(B), ¶22 , (explaining that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies to the best interests determination), should be determined under a heightened standard of proof for Indian children.

¶9 “When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” 1 In his reply brief, Marco argues the statute provides no guidance to courts for determining what constitutes clear and convincing evidence for purposes of § 8-106.01(E).

Therefore, “the best interests inquiry focuses primarily upon the interests of the child, as distinct from those of the parent.” ¶37

1388, 1394-95 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); , In re Cochise County Juvenile Action No. 5666-J

-85, ¶25 , -19 (2005) (clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard of proof indicating the fact is highly probable or reasonably certain).

See Kent K v. Bobby M., -85, ¶25 , -19 (2005) (clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard of proof indicating the fact is highly probable or reasonably certain).

-19 (2005) (defining “clear and convincing” as “‘highly probable’”), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999).

§ 8-533(B); -84 , -18 (2005).

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, “we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14 , ¶ 16 , (statutory language “is the most reliable index of its meaning.”).

“‘When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.’” State v. Arellano, No. CV-05-0397-SA, ¶ 9, 2006 WL 1412884, *3 (Ariz. May 24, 2006), (“[A] statute’s language is the most reliable index of its meaning.”).

¶ 24 , (stating parents possess fundamental liberty interest in care, custody and management of their children); Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language” to find the legislature’s intent and do “not engage in other means of statutory interpretation.” - 3 - ¶ 14, (citing Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., 194 Ariz. 62, 66, ).

When a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language” to find the legislature’s intent and do “not engage in other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14 , (citing Aros v. Beneficial Ariz., Inc., , ).

v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, ¶ 13 , (noting that statutory language should be interpreted in conjunction with other provisions of the statute); ¶ 14 , (explaining that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation).