Cited by

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

1357 citing documents.

Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B. Ariz. 2022
B. ¶29 The court of appeals, ¶ 35 (2005), concluded the juvenile court erred in conducting the best-interests inquiry by focusing “solely” on H.B.’s best interests after finding the length-of-sentence ground rather than “balanc[ing] the interests of both the child and the parent.” Timothy B., 250 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 21.
Jurgen M., Ashley C. v. Dcs, E.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jurgen M., Ashley C. v. Dcs, E.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.
Erin S. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Tava R. v. Dcs, T.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Erin S. v. Dcs, J.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at 4, ¶ 15 ( ¶ 34 (2005)).
Tava R. v. Dcs, T.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“Clear and convincing” means the grounds for termination are “highly probable or reasonably certain.” –85, ¶ 25 (2005).
Sarah P., Michael M. v. Dcs, V.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Keyandia C. v. Dcs, C.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Keyandia C. v. Dcs, C.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sarah P., Michael M. v. Dcs, V.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Clifford C. v. Dcs, B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Clifford C. v. Dcs, B.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
To meet the standard for clear and convincing evidence, the court must find the grounds for termination are “highly probable or reasonably certain.” -85, ¶ 25 (2005).
Christina H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Brooks H. v. Dcs, Z.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Jorden B. v. Dcs, L.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Brooks H. v. Dcs, Z.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Christina H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Jorden B. v. Dcs, L.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gabriel G. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gabriel G. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
James S. v. Karina R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
James S. v. Karina R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 8–533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Edmonds v. 9540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Edmonds v. 9540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Further, “[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in any other means of statutory interpretation.” ¶ 14 (2005) (citation omitted).
Christina B. v. Dcs, A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Joshua W. v. Dcs, E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Christina B. v. Dcs, A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 41 (2005); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Tammy R. v. Lance B., A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Tammy R. v. Lance B., A.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Dep’t ¶ 11 (App. 2014); ¶ 33 (2005) (applying the Mathews test to a privately-initiated termination action).
Marianna R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Marianna R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 8–537(B); 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005); Ruben M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
AMY PURDY v. HON. D. DOUGLAS METCALF Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
highly probable or reasonably certain.’” (alteration in Parker) ().
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Brandon K., Delia B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Once the superior court determines DCS proved a statutory ground for termination, “the focus shifts to the interests of the child as distinct from those of the parent.” 7 BRANDON K., DELIA B. v. DCS et al. Decision of the Court ¶ 31 (2005).
Linsay A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Linsay A. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
David A. v. Anayza M., D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
David A. v. Anayza M., D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“Clear and convincing” means the grounds for termination are “highly probable or reasonably certain.” –85, ¶ 25 (2005) (citation omitted).
Jessie D. v. dcs/f v. m.D./m.D./c.D. Ariz. 2021
Jessie D. v. dcs/f v. m.D./m.D./c.D. Ariz. 2021
A court may terminate “parental rights under certain circumstances, so long as the parents whose rights are to be severed are provided with ‘fundamentally fair procedures’ that satisfy due process requirements.” ¶ 24 (2005) (quoting Santosky, 455 U.S. at 754).
Harry W. v. Dcs, L.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Harry W. v. Dcs, L.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Decision of the Court “highly probable or reasonably certain.” –85, ¶ 25 (2005).
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Cota v. Keene Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Kristina H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021