Cited by

¶ 15 (2016) (“Once a juvenile court finds that a parent is unfit, the focus shifts to the child’s interests.

“Of foremost concern in that regard is ‘protect[ing] a child’s interest in stability and security.’” ¶ 15 (2016) (citing Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 286, ¶ 34).

¶¶ 12, 14 (2016) (“When a current placement meets the child’s needs and the child’s prospective adoption is otherwise legally possible and likely,” the superior court may find that severance is in the child’s best interests.).

¶ 15 (2016) (noting that once a juvenile court finds a statutory ground for severance, “in considering best interests, the court must balance the unfit parent’s ‘diluted interest’ against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life”) (quotation omitted).

we can presume that the interests of the parent and child diverge because the court has already found the existence of one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.” ¶ 15 (2016).

¶ 12 (2016); see Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.

¶13 “[I]n considering best interests, the court must balance the unfit parent’s ‘diluted’ interest ‘against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life.’” ¶ 15 (2016).

¶ 15 (2016); Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 287, ¶ 38.

Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F. , , ¶ 16

Sec., ¶ 20 (App. 2014) (holding termination is in the child’s best interest if the child will benefit from the termination or will be harmed if the relationship continues); -4, ¶ 12 (2016) (holding a court should consider whether the current placement is meeting the child’s needs, an adoption plan is in place, and if the child is adoptable when determining whether the child will benefit).

wants her last name to be the same as her other family members and that “she very much so wants to be adopted.” ¶ 1 (2016) (“[I]n a private proceeding to sever parental rights, just as in state-initiated proceedings, a juvenile court may conclude that a proposed adoption benefits the child and supports a finding that severance is in the child’s best interests.”).

¶ 9 (2016) (citation omitted).

See Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F. , , 4, ¶ 15, , 356 (2016) ; Kent K. , 210 Ariz. at 287 , ¶ 38 , 110 P.3d at 1021 .

¶ 16 (2016) ( ¶ 21 (App. 2014).

¶ 9 (2016) (citation omitted).

¶ 9 (2016); In re Pima Cty.

and Father.” E.O.’s guardian ad litem appealed again, and this Court vacated and remanded the November 2014 ruling for a determination of E.O.’s P.3d 3 We cite the current version of statutes unless revisions relevant to this decision have occurred since the events in question.

“[A] juvenile court may conclude that a proposed adoption benefits the child[ren] and supports a finding that severance is in the child[ren]’s best interests.” ¶ 1 (2016).