DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

582 citing documents.

  • Justin M. v. April M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Justin M. v. April M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “[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.” ¶ 1 (2016).
  • Thomas A. v. Samantha A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Thomas A. v. Samantha A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “[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.” ¶ 1 (2016).
  • Amanda G. v. Dcs, A.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Amanda G. v. Dcs, A.O. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Crystal E. v. Department of Child Safety 390 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Crystal E. v. Department of Child Safety 390 P.3d 1222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    “[W]e will affirm a severance order unless it is clearly erroneous.” ¶ 9
  • Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    -6, ¶¶ 20-22, -58 (2016) (affirming termination of father’s parental rights to child living with mother and stepfather; reasonable evidence supported juvenile court’s finding of affirmative benefit due to stepfather’s plan to adopt child).
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 17 (2016) (“[D]epending on the circumstances, adoption can provide sufficient benefits to support a best-interests finding .
  • Jean K. v. Jeremy M., J.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jean K. v. Jeremy M., J.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶12 Once a juvenile court finds that a parent is unfit, the focus shifts to the child’s best interests and 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, ( ¶ 35, ).
  • Cynthia G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Nona P. v. Charles W., E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Cynthia G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    In a best interests inquiry, “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) ( ¶ 35 (2005)).
  • Nona P. v. Charles W., E.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Demetrius L., v. Joshlynn F., ¶ 9, (appellate court will not reverse a juvenile court’s termination order if it is supported by reasonable evidence; juvenile court is in the best position to weigh evidence and assess witness credibility).
  • E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    For the following reasons, P.3d 353 (2016).
  • Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sandra T. v. Trevor A., H.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Brooke M. v. Timothy S., W.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    For the following reasons, we affirm the court’s finding of abandonment and remand for reconsideration of Child’s
  • Dixie J. v. John S., A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Dixie J. v. John S., A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Veronica E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Veronica E. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Termination is appropriate if the children “would be harmed if the relationship continued or would benefit from the termination.” ¶ 16 (2016).
  • Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Jeremy v. v. Judith H., K.V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Mother petitioned for review, and our supreme court vacated the decision and remanded the case back to this Court for reconsideration in light of its recent opinion, which addressed the best interests analysis as articulated in Jose M. Upon reconsideration, having given full consideration to Demetrius L., and having reevaluated the case on appeal, we again vacate the severance order.
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    See Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F., No. CV-15-0274-PR, ¶¶ 1, 15-17 , 356-57 , 2016 WL 116104 (Ariz. Jan.