Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454 (2026)

Effect of emancipation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-2454. Effect of emancipation

A. An emancipation order issued pursuant to this article recognizes the minor as an adult for the following purposes:

1. The right to enter into a binding contract.

2. The ability to sue and be sued.

3. The right to buy and sell real property.

4. The right to establish a legal residence.

5. The obligation to pay child support.

6. The right to incur debts.

7. The right to access medical treatment and records.

8. The right to consent to medical, dental and psychiatric care without parental consent, knowledge or liability.

9. The right to consent to medical, dental and psychiatric care for the emancipated minor's child.

10. Eligibility for social services.

11. The right to obtain a license to operate equipment or perform a service.

12. The right to apply for enrollment in any school or college.

13. The ability to apply for loans.

14. The ability to pursue any other opportunity that is provided by law to a person who is at least eighteen years of age.

B. An emancipation order issued pursuant to this article terminates a parent's or legal guardian's:

1. Right to the emancipated minor's income.

2. Future child support obligations relating to the emancipated minor.

3. Tort liability for the emancipated minor's actions.

4. Obligation to financially support the emancipated minor after the first day of the month following entry of this order.

5. Obligation to provide medical support for the emancipated minor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1979–2019 · leading case: Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “Following the reasoning in Argonaut and the language of § 12-2454, we hold that § 23-1068 of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude all of Husband’s disability benefits from assignment for spousal maintenance.”
Bagalini v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 660 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “On June 1, 1981, appellee again sought enforcement of the child support payments and requested a wage assignment pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2454. A judgment was entered on September 11 in favor of appellee against Mr.”
Saenz v. State Fund Workers' Comp. Ins., 943 P.2d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “35 to the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court “no later than 10 days after this order becomes binding under A.R.S. § 12-2454.” 2 To comply with the order of assignment, the Fund issued a $17,880.”
Hanley v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 P.3d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “¶ 24 Unlike the obligees in Bagalini, Lyons, and Brooks , Brenda claims she is entitled to all of Raymond’s workers’ compensation disability benefits and that neither section 33-1131 nor any other applicable statute exempts workers’ compensation benefits from attachment to…”
Saenz v. State Fund Workers's Comp. Ins., 943 P.2d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “35 to the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court "no later than 10 days after this order becomes binding under A.R.S. § 12-2454." [2] To comply with the order of assignment, the Fund issued a $17,880.”
Schecter v. Cassidy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-2454(B)(2). If, as Cassidy argues, the parties’ child emancipated at the age of sixteen, Cassidy would not be obligated to pay any further child support thereafter.”
Finfrock v. Finfrock, 595 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “Besides seeking interest on the arrearages, she alleged that appellee’s “authorization for automatic transfer” of $125 on a semi-monthly basis from his account in the teacher’s credit union to her account was insufficient to comply with § 12-2454. Appellee responded that the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(0) — 1 case
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Following the reasoning in Argonaut and the language of § 12-2454, we hold that § 23-1068 of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude all of Husband’s disability benefits from assignment for spousal maintenance.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(A) — 4 cases
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Following the reasoning in Argonaut and the language of § 12-2454, we hold that § 23-1068 of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude all of Husband’s disability benefits from assignment for spousal maintenance.”
Bagalini v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 660 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “On June 1, 1981, appellee again sought enforcement of the child support payments and requested a wage assignment pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2454. A judgment was entered on September 11 in favor of appellee against Mr.”
Hanley v. Indus. Comm'n, 21 P.3d 850 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “¶ 24 Unlike the obligees in Bagalini, Lyons, and Brooks , Brenda claims she is entitled to all of Raymond’s workers’ compensation disability benefits and that neither section 33-1131 nor any other applicable statute exempts workers’ compensation benefits from attachment to…”
Finfrock v. Finfrock, 595 P.2d 189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “Besides seeking interest on the arrearages, she alleged that appellee’s “authorization for automatic transfer” of $125 on a semi-monthly basis from his account in the teacher’s credit union to her account was insufficient to comply with § 12-2454. Appellee responded that the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(B) — 2 cases
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Following the reasoning in Argonaut and the language of § 12-2454, we hold that § 23-1068 of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude all of Husband’s disability benefits from assignment for spousal maintenance.”
Bagalini v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 660 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “On June 1, 1981, appellee again sought enforcement of the child support payments and requested a wage assignment pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2454. A judgment was entered on September 11 in favor of appellee against Mr.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(B)(2) — 1 case
Schecter v. Cassidy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “See A.R.S. § 12-2454(B)(2). If, as Cassidy argues, the parties’ child emancipated at the age of sixteen, Cassidy would not be obligated to pay any further child support thereafter.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(C) — 1 case
Brooks v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 839 P.2d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Following the reasoning in Argonaut and the language of § 12-2454, we hold that § 23-1068 of the Workers’ Compensation Act does not exclude all of Husband’s disability benefits from assignment for spousal maintenance.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(F) — 1 case
Bagalini v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 660 P.2d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “On June 1, 1981, appellee again sought enforcement of the child support payments and requested a wage assignment pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2454. A judgment was entered on September 11 in favor of appellee against Mr.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2454(G) — 2 cases
Saenz v. State Fund Workers' Comp. Ins., 943 P.2d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “35 to the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court “no later than 10 days after this order becomes binding under A.R.S. § 12-2454.” 2 To comply with the order of assignment, the Fund issued a $17,880.”
Saenz v. State Fund Workers's Comp. Ins., 943 P.2d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “35 to the Clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court "no later than 10 days after this order becomes binding under A.R.S. § 12-2454." [2] To comply with the order of assignment, the Fund issued a $17,880.”
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.