Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Michael J. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security, 995 P.2d 682.

1245 citing documents.

Nathan T. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 41 (2005); ¶ 12 (2000).
Krystle M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jessie D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
§ 8-533(B)(4); ¶ 28 (2000).
Darrell S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Darrell S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trung N. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trung N. v. Dcs, J.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aragon v. Eulate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Aragon v. Eulate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 11 (2000)), Father presents a debatable issue regarding whether the trial court complied with due process, protective order procedure, and Arizona statutes, see Savord, 235 Ariz. at 259-60, ¶ 16 (confirming that due process protections apply to protective order proceedings).
Jaime Q. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Jaime Q. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael M. v. Anita P., M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Samantha D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Samantha D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael M. v. Anita P., M.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wiley A. v. Dcs, K.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Wiley A. v. Dcs, K.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Christopher H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Christopher H. v. Dcs, M.H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Desiree A., Donovan J. v. Dcs, D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Desiree A., Donovan J. v. Dcs, D.A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
Trisha A. v. Department of Child safety/l.A./l.A. 446 P.3d 380 Ariz. 2019
248-49 ¶ 12, , 684-85 (2000).
Amber M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Amber M. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael F. v. Ashley B., O.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Michael F. v. Ashley B., O.F. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Megan E. v. Dcs, H.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Megan E. v. Dcs, H.E. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sharece N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sharece N. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 20 (2000), and “we will not reverse a termination order for insufficient evidence unless, as a matter of law, no reasonable fact-finder could have found the evidence satisfied the applicable burden of proof,” ¶ 6 (App. 2016) (citation omitted).
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Haley W., Gary W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 27 (2000), and Maricopa Cty.
Brandon H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Brandon H. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., -52, ¶ 29 (2000), the juvenile court found DCS had proved by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights was warranted on the grounds of his incarceration.
Kristin B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kristin B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fernando M. v. Dcs, C.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Neil B. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Neil B. v. Dcs, C.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Fernando M. v. Dcs, C.M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Breige H. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Breige H. v. Dcs, A.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 12 (2000), and proof by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child.
Kathryn v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Kathryn v. Dcs, A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
David v. v. Steve v. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
David v. v. Steve v. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 22 2 We cite to the current version of any statute unless the statute was amended after the pertinent events and such amendment would affect the result of this appeal.
Casha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Casha C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sec., ¶ 32 (2000); In re Pima Cty.
Karla M. v. Larry J. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by