Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L., 365 P.3d 353.

582 citing documents.

Monique H. v. Dcs, Et El. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Robert O. v. Mary B., A.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶¶ 13, 15 (2016); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 35.
Lessie N., James D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jason O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jason O. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lessie N., James D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“It is well established in state- initiated cases that the child’s prospective adoption is a benefit that can support a best-interests finding,” ¶ 16 (2016) (citation omitted), recognizing the court “must consider the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the severance determination,” Alma S., 245 Ariz. at 150-51 ¶ 13.
Juana C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Juana C. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Rather, the juvenile court must consider all relevant facts and determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the child “would derive an affirmative benefit from termination or incur a detriment by continuing in the relationship.” Oscar O., 209 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 6 (citations omitted); ¶ 16 (2016).
James S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Denisse P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
James S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Denisse P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 15 (2016) (holding that, at the best-interests stage of the analysis, the child’s interest in stability and security must be the court’s primary concern (citations omitted)).
Eryca L. v. Dcs, R.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Eryca L. v. Dcs, R.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Tyrome B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Darrin v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Darrin v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sandra R,, Sergio C. v. Dcs 436 P.3d 503 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
“When a current placement meets the child’s needs and the child’s prospective adoption is otherwise legally possible and likely, a juvenile court may find that termination of parental rights, so as to permit adoption, is in the child’s best interests.” ¶ 12 (2016).
Tyrome B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
A.L. v. J.B. G.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
A.L. v. J.B. G.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Bradley T. v. Sydney W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Manuel T. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
v. Oscar O., ¶ 6 (App. 2004); ¶ 16 (2016).
Bradley T. v. Sydney W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
at 150–51, ¶¶ 12–13 (citations omitted); ¶ 12 (2016) (“When a current placement meets the child’s needs and the child’s prospective adoption is otherwise legally possible and likely, a juvenile court may find that termination .
Jennifer S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jennifer S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 16 (2016) (citation omitted).
Aleise H. v. Dcs 432 P.3d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Aleise H. v. Dcs 432 P.3d 928 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
is protecting a child’s interest in stability and security,” ¶ 15 (2016).
Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Quinton v. v. Dcs, A.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
To establish best interests, it must be shown that the child “would derive an affirmative benefit from termination or incur a detriment by continuing in the relationship.” Oscar O., 209 Ariz. at 334, ¶ 6; ¶ 16 (2016).
Justin M., Stephanie R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Justin M., Stephanie R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kyle J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Kyle J. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
the petitioner proves that a current adoptive plan exists for the child, or even that the child is adoptable.” –4, ¶ 12 (2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Mary Lou C., 207 Ariz. at 50, ¶ 19).
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 425 P.3d 1089 Ariz. 2018
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 425 P.3d 1089 Ariz. 2018
Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mary Jean M. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Mary Jean M. v. Dcs, E.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Seth M. v. Arienne M. 426 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Seth M. v. Arienne M. 426 P.3d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Megan M. v. Matthew M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Megan M. v. Matthew M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Johanna M. v. Dcs, Y.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Johanna M. v. Dcs, Y.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Francisco v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Francisco v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 15 (2016); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 35.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by