Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-601 (2026)
Parents' rights protected
✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1-601. Parents' rights protected
A. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right.
B. This state, any political subdivision of this state or any other governmental entity shall not infringe on these rights without demonstrating that the compelling governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order, is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (27 in the last 5 years), 2012–2026 · leading case: Trisha A. v. Dep't of Child Saf./l.A./l.A., 446 P.3d 380 (Ariz. 2019).
Trisha A. v. Dep't of Child Saf./l.A./l.A., 446 P.3d 380 (Ariz. 2019). “Even when she examined the pertinent civil procedure rules, she would not learn about the meritorious defense requirement because it does not appear there either.”
Louis C. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 353 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “He also maintains the court erred in adjudicating J.C.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state, 434 P.3d 143 (Ariz. 2019). “Although criminal charges put at stake an accused's liberty, dependency proceedings affect liberty interests as well-the fundamental right of parents regarding their children's upbringing, see A.R.S. § 1-601(A) ; Kent K. v. Bobby M. , 210 Ariz.”
Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 1-601(A); see also A.R.S. § 1-602.”
Paul E. v. Courtney F., 439 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. 2019). “§ 1-601 (recognizing that "[t]he liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right" that "shall not [be] infringe[d] on" absent a compelling governmental interest "of the highest order" and only when…”
Joshua J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 286 P.3d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 8-842(C) requires prompt dependency hearings as protection for the rights of parents to their children.”
Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr, 418 P.3d 884 (Ariz. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 1-601(A) ; cf. Downs , 206 Ariz.”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin, 382 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 1—602(E), which is part of Arizona's Parents' Bill of Rights, A.R.S. §§ 1-601 to 1-602, we confine our discussion to the issue before us, which is whether Suzan is a parent for purposes of a marital dissolution proceeding under Title 25 and the definition of parent in §…”
In re Term of Parental Rights as to M.N., 563 P.3d 136 (Ariz. 2025). “57, 65 (2000). Under Arizona law, infringement of this fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny.”
State of Arizona v. Tyler B., 290 P.3d 435 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “Section 1-602(A)(8) gives parents “[t]he right to consent in writing before any record of the minor child’s blood or deoxyribonucleic acid is created, stored or shared,” except as required or authorized by certain statutes or authorized by court order.”
Jessica P. v. Dcs, H.P., No. 1 CA-JV 19-0253 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 28, 2020). “9 , 11, ¶ 6 (2018). Under strict scrutiny analysis there is no presumption that a statute is constitutional.”
Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G., No. 1 CA-JV 19-0346 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 9, 2020). “¶31 Mother claims DCS was required to make express findings of a compelling government interest before interfering with her parental rights, and it was also required to demonstrate that its interference was 9 narrowly tailored and not otherwise served by less restrictive means.…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-601(A): 16 cases
Trisha A. v. Dep't of Child Saf./l.A./l.A., 446 P.3d 380 (Ariz. 2019). “Even when she examined the pertinent civil procedure rules, she would not learn about the meritorious defense requirement because it does not appear there either.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state, 434 P.3d 143 (Ariz. 2019). “Although criminal charges put at stake an accused's liberty, dependency proceedings affect liberty interests as well-the fundamental right of parents regarding their children's upbringing, see A.R.S. § 1-601(A) ; Kent K. v. Bobby M. , 210 Ariz.”
Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “” A.R.S. § 1-601(A); see also A.R.S. § 1-602.”
Joshua J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 286 P.3d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 8-842(C) requires prompt dependency hearings as protection for the rights of parents to their children.”
Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr, 418 P.3d 884 (Ariz. 2018). “" A.R.S. § 1-601(A) ; cf. Downs , 206 Ariz.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-601(B): 13 cases
Trisha A. v. Dep't of Child Saf./l.A./l.A., 446 P.3d 380 (Ariz. 2019). “Even when she examined the pertinent civil procedure rules, she would not learn about the meritorious defense requirement because it does not appear there either.”
In re Term of Parental Rights as to M.N., 563 P.3d 136 (Ariz. 2025). “57, 65 (2000). Under Arizona law, infringement of this fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny.”
Jessica P. v. Dcs, H.P., No. 1 CA-JV 19-0253 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 28, 2020). “9 , 11, ¶ 6 (2018). Under strict scrutiny analysis there is no presumption that a statute is constitutional.”
Maria v. v. Dcs, Z.G., No. 1 CA-JV 19-0346 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 9, 2020). “¶31 Mother claims DCS was required to make express findings of a compelling government interest before interfering with her parental rights, and it was also required to demonstrate that its interference was 9 narrowly tailored and not otherwise served by less restrictive means.…”
Timothy B. v. dcs/h.B., No. CV-20-0318-PR (Ariz. Mar. 7, 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.