Cited by

¶ 37 (2005) (“[T]he child’s interest in obtaining a loving, stable home, or at the very least avoiding a potentially harmful relationship with a parent, deserves at least as much weight as that accorded the interest to the unfit parent in maintaining parental rights.”).

Ultimately, the court’s primary concern during the best-interests inquiry is “protecting a child’s interest in stability and security.” ¶ 15 (2016) ( ¶ 35 (2005)).

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

–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).

–82, 288 ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).

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

We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo and “interpret statutes to give effect to the legislature’s intent.” 283, ¶¶ 8, n.6, 14 (2005).

at 249, ¶ 12, and, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination is in the child’s best interests, ¶ 22 (2005).

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

Sec., ¶ 12 (2000), and that termination is in the children’s best interests by a 3 IN RE TERM OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO N.R., et al. Decision of the Court preponderance of the evidence, ¶ 41 (2005).

Sec., ¶ 12 (2000); ¶ 41 (2005).

–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).

Once the superior court finds the existence of a statutory ground for termination by clear and convincing evidence, it can “presume that the interests of the parent and child diverge,” ¶ 35 (2005), and shift its focus “to the interests of the child as distinct from those of the parent,” id.

Sec., ¶ 12 (2000); ¶ 41 (2005).

–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005).

§ 8-871(A); ¶ 41 (2005) (preponderance standard for best interests inquiry).

-85, ¶ 25 (2005) (“Clear and convincing evidence .

¶10 Parental rights may be terminated only through “‘fundamentally fair procedures’ that satisfy due process requirements.” ¶ 24 (2005) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 754 (1982)).

§ 8-533(B) and must find by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child’s best interests.4 See Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 249, ¶ 12; ¶ 41 (2005).

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

Alma S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, -50 ¶ 8 (2018); ¶ 22 (2005).