Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County, 722 P.2d 236.

68 citing documents.

In Re Term of Parental Rights as to S.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(juvenile court case applying Ariz. R. Civ.
NICHOLS v. SLAVICEK Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a parent’s fundamental right to the “care, custody, and control of their children”); & n.2 (1986) (explaining that the child’s best interests “shall govern” across various contexts, including probate matters); Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2018) (noting that “the decision to [apply] waiver is discretionary”); In re Guardianship of J.B., 1 CA-JV 25-0080, 2025 WL 3
Levi R. v. Dcs, E.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Levi R. v. Dcs, E.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
See Bechtel v. Rose In & For Maricopa Cnty., (standing is only one factor courts look at to determine if a party can intervene in an action).
Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Allegra G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
§ 8– 202(F); n.4 (1986) (noting that the juvenile court’s orders regarding dependency of a child take precedence over the orders of the superior court when acting in probate and domestic relations capacities, and this supremacy “includes matters of temporary custody preceding the actual dependency determination”).
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Stephanie S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Moreover, and 2 This court affirmed the order terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights.
Patricia S. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Patricia S. v. Dcs, E.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
grandparents to be heard; it does not confer any right to custody upon them.” Bechtel v. Rose In & For Maricopa Cnty., n.3 (1986).
Heritage v. Weinberg 443 P.3d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Heritage v. Weinberg 443 P.3d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., (), we agree with the broader approach.
Jones v. Hon Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jones v. Hon Anderson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 1120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
See Bechtel v. Rose , , 73, , 241 (1986) ; see also Allen v. Chon-Lopez , , ¶¶ 11-12, , 386 (App. 2007).
Maria S., Feliciano R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Maria S., Feliciano R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“Grandparents are among those people eligible to become guardian of a child found to be dependent” and, as such, a child’s grandparents “should be allowed to intervene in the dependency process unless a specific showing is made that the best interest of the child would not be served thereby.” see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-514(B).
Dcs v. Hon. duncan/juan P., S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Dcs v. Hon. duncan/juan P., S.P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Similarly, special action jurisdiction is proper when an appellate court is asked to address “the care and custody of a very young child.” accord Dep’t ¶ 6 (App. 2014).
Bella P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Bella P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sherri C. v. Dcs, H.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Sherri C. v. Dcs, H.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(noting denial of motion to intervene is a final, appealable order).
David F., Michelle F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
David F., Michelle F. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Roberto F. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 301 P.3d 211 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
§ 25-409) , intervention was permitted under Rule 24(b)(2).
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Dowling v. Stapley 211 P.3d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 172 P.3d 418 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
75 n. 4, , 243 n. 4 (1986) (stating that “the juvenile court remains the forum for resolving questions of dependency....
Grace Howard Allen v. Ades and T.S.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Grace Howard Allen v. Ades and T.S.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.; -72, -40 (1986) (accepting special action jurisdiction of denial of motion to intervene); J.A.R.
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Montero v. Foreman 64 P.3d 206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1 (2001); , (“The guiding principle [of special action jurisdiction is] ...
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
In Re the Marriage of Dorman 9 P.3d 329 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
344, 347 , (denial of change of venue should be challenged by special action); -72 , -40 (1986) (special action more appropriate than appeal to challenge denial of motion to intervene in dependency action); , (special action to review temporary visitation order).
William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 965 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
William Z. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 965 P.2d 1224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Antonsen v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY OF MARICOPA 918 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Antonsen v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY OF MARICOPA 918 P.2d 203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , , , (even where challenged order was appealable, special action was proper because “we are dealing with the care and custody of a very young child and vigilant to protect his right to a suitable and speedy placement”); see also Johnson v. Johnson, 120 N.C.App.
J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
J.A.R. v. Superior Court 877 P.2d 1323 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
4 , see also Maricopa County Juv.
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbons v. Superior Court 873 P.2d 700 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Finck v. Superior Court 868 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Finck v. Superior Court 868 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(" 'When the urgent and agonizing nature of the numerous proceedings affecting custody is taken into consideration, with the resulting detriment to the [child] involved, it is apparent that the ultimate remedy available to petitioner by way of appeal is neither plain, speedy, nor adequat