| 1 CA-JUV 382 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1988-01-07 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-6831
|
|
… termination has been found under A.R.S. § 8-533(B), A.R.S. § 8-538 mandates the termination of parental rights. He further argues that although A.R.S. § 8-533(B) allows the juvenile court to consider the needs of the child in determining th …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 388 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1987-12-24 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-7135
|
|
… d its discretion by refusing to permit a child’s grandparents to intervene in a termination of parental rights action brought by the natural mother (“mother”) against their son, the natural father (“father”), when both the mother and father …
|
| 2 CA-CV 87-0201 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1987-12-17 |
—
|
Geer v. Ordway
|
|
… Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), the termination of parental rights for permanent neglect of the children was in issue. And in In re Guardianship of Reyes, 152 Ariz. 235 , 731 P.2d 130 (App.1986), …
|
| 2 CA-CIV 5548 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1986-08-11 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action B-10489
|
|
… dy between parents. Once an adoption is final, the sole means of reversal is by termination of parental rights — a remedy not lightly undertaken. As the dissent correctly notes, the judge was concerned over a child’s reaction in the future …
|
| CV-86-0043-SA |
Ariz. |
1986-06-18 |
—
|
Bechtel v. Rose in and for Maricopa County
|
|
… legal right to be considered as guardians and custodians of children following termination of parental rights grants to them the right to intervene in the proceedings under Iowa law. The Court then concluded that it was “unnecessary to con …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 246, 1 CA-JUV 247 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1984-10-23 |
—
|
In the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-5209 & No. JS-4963
|
|
… ument is that obviously such conditions would not be a legitimate basis for the termination of parental rights and that therefore the definition of “mental disorder” is overbroad. The vagueness and overbreadth arguments are founded upon the …
|
| 17328-PR |
Ariz. |
1984-03-27 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Yavapai County Juvenile Action No. J-8545
|
|
… ad to determine which of two orders (one stating the trial court’s finding that termination of parental rights was warranted; the second stating the findings which prompted that conclusion) was a final order before we could determine whethe …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 189 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1983-06-21 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25525
|
|
… ttempt to establish his paternity. In December, the Agency filed a petition for termination of parental rights. The petition named the natural father as “allegedly” Edmund Jackson and identified the child as of “Indian-American descent.” A …
|
| 2 CA-CIV 4626 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1983-04-27 |
—
|
Haralambie v. Pima County
|
|
… esent minor children and the natural father in a dependency proceeding and in a termination of parental rights proceeding. As compensation for this representation, the judge who had appointed appellants and who presided over the proceedings …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 173 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1982-12-07 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS-4118/JD-529
|
|
… llant argues that because Santosky v. Kramer, supra, holds that the grounds for termination of parental rights must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, Arizona’s entire termination statute, which only requires a finding by a prepond …
|
| No. 1 CA-JUV 175 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1982-11-26 |
—
|
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. A-26961
|
|
… is for the statutory requirement of consent to final adoption and the resulting termination of parental rights as outlined in A.R.S. §§ 8-106 — 117. 3 Thus, the trial court’s order of January 20, 1982, cannot be considered a final order in …
|
| 16162-SA |
Ariz. |
1982-10-20 |
—
|
Klahr v. Court of Appeals of State, Div. One
|
|
… , 1981, Judge Rose entered an order dismissing the petitions for dependency and termination of parental rights but ordered, pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-538(D), that custody of Jennifer and Dannielle Silver be awarded to their mother and that Mat …
|
| No. 1 CA-JUV 171 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1982-10-19 |
—
|
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JS-4283
|
|
… 133 Ariz. 157 , 650 P.2d 459 (1982). A.R.S. § 8-533 establishes the grounds for termination of parental rights in Arizona. Included in the grounds for termination is evidence that the parent has abandoned the child or that the parent has ma …
|
| 15953-PR |
Ariz. |
1982-10-13 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-933
|
|
… te. We hold that the requirements of A.R.S. § 8-538(A) must be complied with in termination of parental rights cases before an order may be considered a final order and appealable under the juvenile rules. . The November 20 order in this ca …
|
| 1 CA-CIV 6564-SA |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1982-09-02 |
—
|
Silver v. Rose
|
|
… igible or delinquent.” 100 Ariz. at 172 , 412 P.2d at 466 . Caruso involved the termination of parental rights and is directly on point. The court further stated: Before the Juvenile Court can consider what disposition it can make in the be …
|
| No. 2 CA-CIV 4328 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1982-06-25 |
—
|
In re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-983
|
|
… ree that an act of sexual assault is “egregiously offensive.” In re Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, 449 Pa. 543 , 297 A.2d 117 (1972). Whether or not commission of such crime, in and of itself, permits a rational inference of un …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 166 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1982-05-13 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-4130
|
|
… tosky v. Kramer, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), on Arizona’s termination of parental rights statute, A.R.S. § 8-537. The second and more difficult issue is whether there was sufficient evidence in this case to support the …
|
| No. 1 CA-JUV 168 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1981-12-10 |
—
|
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-25646
|
|
… ed it had no jurisdiction over Timothy and therefore dismissed the petition for termination of parental rights as to him. The juvenile court relied on A.R.S. § 8-531(3). The court further found that the respondent had abandoned Richard and …
|
| 15429-PR |
Ariz. |
1981-11-24 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Gila County Juvenile Action No. J-3824
|
|
… parents and children above the interest in the family relationship.” Involumary Termination of Parental Rights: The Need For Clear and Convincing Evidence, 29 American University Law Review 771, 792 (1980). The common interest of parents an …
|
| 2 CA-CIV 4083 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1981-09-14 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903.
|
|
… onable doubt. 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912 (f). Additionally, the party seeking to effect termination of parental rights is required to satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs desi …
|
| 1 CA-CIV 5398 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1981-01-22 |
—
|
State v. Garza
|
|
… and father had abandoned the child for more than six months and concluding that termination of parental rights was authorized by A.R.S. § 8-533(1), the Maricopa County Juvenile Court issued its minute-entry order terminating appellant’s par …
|
| 1 CA-CIV 4503 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1980-04-24 |
—
|
Matter of Juvenile No. J-2255
|
|
… disagree. Different considerations apply in divorce child custody cases than in termination of parental rights cases. If A.R.S. § 8-533(4) is satisfied and a termination order and judgment is entered, appellant obviously also loses his righ …
|
| No. 13112-PR |
Ariz. |
1978-01-13 |
—
|
Clark v. Curran
|
|
… ase the trial judge applied the same standard as would have been required for a termination of parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533. See also A.R.S. § 8-531(9) defining neglect of a child. Although the evidence at the hearing was in dispute …
|
| 13112-PR |
Ariz. |
1978-01-13 |
—
|
Matter of Appeal in Pima County Etc.
|
|
… ase the trial judge applied the same standard as would have been required for a termination of parental rights under A.R.S. § 8-533. See also A.R.S. § 8-531(9) defining neglect of a child. Although the evidence at the hearing was in dispute …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 49 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1976-09-30 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action Nos. JS 1308 & JS 1412
|
|
… s unable to remember the names of all her children. The burden of proof for the termination of parental rights is a preponderance of the evidence. ARS § 8-537(B). In Re Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. JS-378, 21 Ariz.App. 202 …
|
| 2 CA-CIV 2038 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1976-09-07 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Severance Action No. S-110
|
|
… been commenced in 1970 when the new juvenile code pro *556 viding for judicial termination of parental rights became operative. It is not the function of this court to interfere with the juvenile court’s findings of fact in severance proce …
|
| 1 CA-JUV 42 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1976-05-13 |
—
|
Matter of App. in Maricopa Cty., Juv. Act.
|
|
… 1967). Thus, until 1972, when the Juvenile Rules were promulgated, appeals from termination of parental rights cases were governed by A.R.S. § 8-543. The termination of a parental relationship, and the right to appeal from an order directin …
|
| No. 1 CA-JUV 42 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1976-05-13 |
—
|
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County
|
|
… 1967). Thus, until 1972, when the Juvenile Rules were promulgated, appeals from termination of parental rights cases were governed by A.R. S. § 8-543. The termination of a parental relationship, and the right to appeal from an order directi …
|
| 2 CA-CIV 1955 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1975-12-18 |
—
|
In Re the Appeal in Pima County, Juvenile Action No. S-111
|
|
… 8 (1972). Different considerations apply in divorce-child custody cases than in termination of parental rights cases. The latter type go far beyond the child-centered question of custody during minority — it involves a different kind of rig …
|
| 2 CA-CIV 1695 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1975-01-15 |
—
|
Hernandez v. ST. EX REL. ARIZ. DEPT. OF ECON. SEC.
|
|
… ng evidence is an essential of due process and fair treatment when dealing with termination of parental rights. As usual, we are faced with the judicial task of balancing competing interests. We are not only concerned with the rights of the …
|
| No. 2 CA-CIV 1695 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1975-01-15 |
—
|
Hernandez v. State ex rel. Arizona Department of Economic Security
|
|
… ng evidence is an essential of due process and fair treatment when dealing with termination of parental rights. As usual, we are faced with the judicial task of balancing competing interests. We are not only concerned with the rights of the …
|
| 1 CA-CIV 598 |
Ariz. Ct. App. |
1967-07-07 |
—
|
Anguis v. Superior Court
|
|
… unt in all cases involving children: “Thus it is, we think, with respect to the termination of parental rights as well as with respect to the entry of an order of adoption and an order of custody, that the prime and overriding consideration …
|