DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ziemak v. Schnakenberg, 127 P.3d 59.

23 citing documents.

  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to I.N. and N.N. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.L. and A.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    Sec., ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (citation omitted) (“[O]rders reaffirming findings that children are dependent” are appealable.).
  • In Re Dependency as to M.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • In Re Term of Parental Rights as to S.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • In Re Dependency as to G.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
  • Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    Sec., –46, ¶¶ 8–9, 12 (App. 2006).
  • John C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Sec., ¶¶ 7-8 (App. 2006), here they are both components of the same order, see Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C.
  • Patricia S. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Sec., ¶ 11 (App. 2006) (holding that a mother’s fundamental right to raise her children was “sufficient to make her an aggrieved party under [A.R.S.]
  • Jamie F. v. Dcs, D.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    Sec., ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (concluding that a dependency disposition order is a final, appealable order).
  • Troy W. v. Dcs, T.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Jessicah C. v. Dcs, J.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    Lindsey M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ Sec., ¶ 8 (App. 2006) (“[A] dependency disposition order .
  • Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶10 Unlike an order relieving DCS of its obligation to provide reunification services, see Francisco F., 228 Ariz. at 381–82, ¶ 8, an order terminating visitation, see JD-5312, 178 Ariz. at 374, or a dependency disposition order, ¶ 8 (App. 2006), an order denying a parent’s Rule 59 motion does not define or alter the obligations or rights of a parent subject to the dependency proceedings.
  • In Re Reynaldo P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Sec., ¶ 5 (App. 2006) (final order must be in writing, signed by the court, and filed with the clerk).
  • Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
    ¶ 11, , 62 (App. 2006) (incarcerated parent aggrieved by disposition order and foster placement based on fundamental right to raise children); Elliott v. Elliott , 612 S.W.2d 889 , 891 (Mo.
  • State v. Preayer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Sec., ¶ 9 (App. 2006) (“[O]rders reaffirming a child’s dependent status and ratifying or changing the child’s placement are .
  • Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
    Sec., , ¶ 9, , 61-62 (App. 2006), and the time to seek appellate review has passed.
  • Wayne T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Sec., ¶ 8, (holding a dependency disposition order entered after an adjudication of dependency is a final, appealable order).
  • Daniel F. v. Dcs, C.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Nicholas S. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Alicia H. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Sec., - 46, ¶¶ 7-9, -62 (App. 2006).
  • Mysti B. v. Ades Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • In re Javier B. 280 P.3d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    Sec., -46, ¶ 9 , -62 (App.2006) (both the dependency adjudication order and the disposition order awarding custody of a dependent child are appealable orders, as are any subsequent orders reaffirming a child’s dependent status and ratifying or changing a child’s placement); Maricopa Cnty.
  • In Re Reymundo F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    Sec., (“To be final and procedurally appealable, the order must be in writing, signed by the court, and filed with the clerk.”); see also Mark 2 See former Ariz. R. P. Juv.