DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Matter of Pima Cty. Juv. Severance Action, 876 P.2d 1121.

24 citing documents.

  • Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Safety 418 P.3d 925 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487 , , 101, , 1136 (1994).
  • Tony J. v. Dcs, A.J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    Severance Action No. S-114487, ).
  • Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
    Our supreme court surmised in In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487, , 90 n. 2, , 1125 n. 2 (1994), that the legislature did so in response to the situation that arose in that case and cases like it, in which the putative father’s rights were severed on the ground of abandonment in order to facilitate the adoption of the child after the mother, but not the putative father, relinquished her parent
  • Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L. 365 P.3d 353 Ariz. 2016
    Severance Action No. S-114487, ).
  • Jared M., Amber M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, (“The law favors rapid placement so that the child can bond with those who will be the legal parents and not with those from whom the child may be taken.
  • Brenda M. , Peter O. v. Dcs, Z.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Juvenile Severance Action No. S–114487
  • Paige S. v. Dcs, G.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Juvenile Action No. S-114487
  • Autumn R. v. Dcs, P.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Juvenile Severance Action No. S- 114487, see also Michael J., 196 Ariz. at 251, ¶¶ 24-25, 995 P.2d at 687 (“The burden to act as a parent rests with the parent, who should assert [her] legal rights at the first and every opportunity.”).
  • Calvin B. v. Brittany B. 304 P.3d 1115 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    ¶ 29 The superior court cited In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, , but the father in that ease did nothing to establish a relationship with the child until he was served with the mother’s petition for termination.
  • Kenneth B. v. Tina B. 243 P.3d 636 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    at 250, ¶ 20, 995 P.2d at 686 (quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, , ).
  • Jared P. v. Glade T. 209 P.3d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    § 8-106(G); Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-11U87, -94 , -29 (1994) (citing Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 392 , 99 S.Ct.
  • John M. v. Ades, Shannon M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
    Action No. S-114487, 101, 1136 (1994); see also Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Servs.
  • Kent K. v. Bobby M. 110 P.3d 1013 Ariz. 2005
    The child, on the other hand, has an interest in a “normal family home.” Santosky, 455 U.S. at 759; see also Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, (finding that in parental severance matters, judges must protect a child’s interest in stability and security).
  • State v. Hazlett 73 P.3d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    Severance Action No. S-114487, , 91 n. 3, , 1126 n. 3 (1994) (noting standing is not jurisdictional in Arizona and court may consider merits if not raised below).
  • Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 42 P.3d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    Sec., , quoting In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, , or risk a judicial finding that he has abandoned the child.
  • State v. Thompson 34 P.3d 382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
    See Matter of Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487, , 91 n. 3, , 1126 n. 3 (1994).
  • Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 995 P.2d 682 Ariz. 2000
    § 8-533.” In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487, , (Action No. S-114487).
  • Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 979 P.2d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    ADES correctly points out that “the new legislation deletes the intent language from the abandonment definition.” Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-114487, , 97 n. 14, , 1132 n. 14 (1994).
  • Toni W. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 993 P.2d 462 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    Severance Action No. S-114487, , (where parent had assumed no parental duties and no parental relationship came into existence, “the message, simply put, is this: do something, because conduct speaks louder than words or subjective intent”).
  • Guethe v. Truscott 912 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
  • Guethe v. Truscott 912 P.2d 33 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
    Severance Action, , (unwed father must vigorously assert legal rights in order to transform biological link into a protected parental relationship and prompt determination is in best interests of child).
  • J.D.S. v. Franks 893 P.2d 732 Ariz. 1995
    1208, 1212-13 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Juvenile Severance S-114487, , 93
  • Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 897 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    at 2993 ; see Pima Co. Juvenile Severance Action No. S-1UA87, , (“While the State may not unduly interfere with an unwed father’s ability to develop this relationship, it need not protect the mere biological link that exists if the father fails to step forward.”).
  • Matter of Juvenile Action No. JS-8490 876 P.2d 1137 Ariz. 1994
    We granted review because the case presented novel issues together with some issues affected by our recent opinion in In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No. S-114487