Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-520 (2026)

Application for evaluation; definition

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

36-520. Application for evaluation; definition

A. Any responsible individual may apply for a court-ordered evaluation of a person who is alleged to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others or a person with a persistent or acute disability or a grave disability and who is unwilling or unable to undergo a voluntary evaluation. The application shall be made in the prescribed form and manner as adopted by the director.

B. The application for evaluation shall include the following, if known:

1. The name and address of the proposed patient for whom evaluation is applied.

2. The age, date of birth, sex, race, marital status, occupation, social security number, present location, dates and places of previous hospitalizations, names and addresses of the guardian, agent under a health care power of attorney or mental health care power of attorney, spouse, next of kin and significant other persons and other data that the director may require on the form to whatever extent that this data is known and is applicable to the proposed patient.

3. The name, address and relationship of the person who is applying for the evaluation.

4. A statement that the proposed patient is exhibiting behaviors that may be consistent with a mental disorder and is believed to be, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others or a patient with a persistent or acute disability or a grave disability and the facts on which this statement is based.

5. A statement from the applicant of whether the applicant believes that the proposed patient is or is not willing or able to undergo voluntary evaluation and the facts on which this statement is based.

6. A statement of the proposed patient's relevant history of mental health diagnosis, treatment recommended or provided and compliance with the treatment recommended or provided.

7. A statement that the applicant believes the proposed patient is in need of screening, evaluation, supervision, care and treatment and the facts on which this statement is based.

8. Copies of all documents relating to guardianship or powers of attorney that allow the guardian or agent to consent to inpatient psychiatric treatment, which shall be attached to the application if available at the time of the application.

9. A statement by the applicant of whether the applicant believes that, without a period of inpatient observation, stabilization and assessment or emergency inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, the proposed patient is likely to cause or endure serious physical harm or injury and the facts supporting that statement.

10. To the extent known, the names and contact information of persons other than the applicant who have witnessed the behavior exhibited by the proposed patient on which the application is based. The screening agency may not deny or refuse to process an application because no other witnesses have been identified.

C. The application shall be signed and notarized. For an application made by a peace officer or a health care professional who is licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 15, 17 or 19.1, a copy of the application that contains the applicant's original signature is acceptable, does not have to be notarized and may be submitted as the written application.

D. The screening agency shall offer assistance to the applicant in preparation of the application. On receipt of the application, the screening agency shall immediately note on the front of the application the time and date of receipt, shall log this information in a record of applications received by the screening agency and shall act as prescribed in section 36-521 within forty-eight hours after the filing of the application, excluding weekends and holidays. If the application is not acted on within forty-eight hours, excluding weekends and holidays, the reasons for not acting promptly shall be reviewed by the director of the screening agency or the director's designee and the reasons shall be stated in the report required by section 36-521, subsection B.

E. If the applicant for the court-ordered evaluation presents the person to be evaluated at the screening agency, the agency shall conduct a prepetition screening examination. Except in the case of an emergency evaluation, the person to be evaluated shall not be detained or forced to undergo prepetition screening against the person's will.

F. In the course of conducting a prepetition screening, the screening agency shall accept and consider information relevant to the present behavior and past behavioral health history of the proposed patient from persons who have a significant relationship with the proposed patient, including family members and guardians.

G. If the applicant for the court-ordered evaluation does not present the person to be evaluated at the screening agency, the agency shall conduct the prepetition screening at the home of the person to be evaluated or any other place the person to be evaluated is found. If prepetition screening is not possible, the screening agency shall proceed as prescribed in section 36-521, subsection B.

H. If a person is being treated by prayer or spiritual means alone in accordance with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner of that church or denomination, the person may not be ordered evaluated, detained or involuntarily treated unless the court has determined that the person is, as a result of mental disorder, a danger to others or to self.

I. If the application is not acted on because it has been determined that the proposed patient does not need an evaluation, the medical director of the screening agency or the medical director's designee shall make a written statement of the reasons why the proposed patient does not need an evaluation and shall retain the application together with the medical director's statement and any records or reports concerning prepetition screening required pursuant to section 36-521.

J. If the screening agency determines that the application should be denied or if the application is accepted but the screening agency declines to file a petition for court-ordered evaluation, the screening agency shall comply with the requirements of section 36-521, subsection C. If the screening of the proposed patient took place in a facility operated by the screening agency, the screening agency shall attempt to notify the applicant that the screening agency intends to release the proposed patient. The screening agency shall document the time and method of the notification or an unsuccessful attempt to notify the applicant. If requested by the applicant, the medical director of the screening agency or the medical director's designee shall provide the reason for the denial of the application or the decision not to file a petition for court-ordered evaluation if either:

1. The disclosure is not opposed by the person who was screened.

2. The person who was screened is deemed to lack capacity to make the decision to allow the disclosure and the disclosure is deemed to be in the person's best interest.

K. For the purposes of this section, "person" includes a person who:

1. Is under eighteen years of age.

2. Has been transferred to the criminal division of the superior court pursuant to section 8-327 or who has been charged with an offense pursuant to section 13-501.

3. Is under the supervision of an adult probation department.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 54 P.3d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 54 P.3d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 11× “Pertinent Facts and Procedural History ¶2 On September 6, 2001, an Application for Involuntary Evaluation of appellant was filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-520 (1993). By statute, an application for evaluation is the means by which involuntary evaluation and eventually…”

Rasmussen by Mitchell v. Fleming, 741 P.2d 674 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 4× “Surely, if the system guarantees the patient a hearing before commitment, it must require some hearing before refusal or termination of treatment necessary for life support.”

In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “, applied for a court-ordered mental health evaluation of appellant under A.R.S. § 36-520 (2009) and/or emergency admission for evaluation under A.”

In re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058, 84 P.3d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 36-520(A) (2003). The application must set forth that the person is one who is, “as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others, persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled” and is intended for one “who is unwilling or unable to undergo a…”

DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 695 P.2d 255 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 4× “Because the liberty of a person alleged by another to be dangerous is at stake, we believe the statutes setting forth the specific course of action to be followed before such a person can be lawfully detained against his or her will, see A.R.S. § 36-520 et seq., must be strictly…”

In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “¶ 17 In the civil context, AR.S. §§ 36-520, -521 and -523 work together to require first that an applicant allege that an individual suffers from a mental disorder and is a danger to self, others or is acutely or gravely disabled.”

In re MH 2007-001275, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “An application for an involuntary evaluation was also submitted at that time pursuant to AR.S. § 36-520 (2003). See A.R.S. § 36-523(C).”

Est. of Maudsley v. Meta Servs., Inc., 258 P.3d 248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Further, under A.R.S. § 36-520(A) (2009), a “responsible individual” can apply for involuntary evaluation and treatment of another.”

Anthony Garcia v. Hon. butler/state, 487 P.3d 256 (Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 36-520 to -529; see also Addington v.”

In re MH 2007-001236, 204 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “An application for an involuntary evaluation was also submitted at that time pursuant to AR.S. § 36-520 (2003). The petition alleged that Appellant had a mental disorder and, as a result of the disorder, Appellant was a danger to others.”

State Ex Rel. Dandoy v. Superior Court, 619 P.2d 12 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 2× “It is contended that the juvenile court had authority under the Mental Health Services Act, particularly A.R.S. § 36-520 et seq. and A.R.S. § 36-533 et seq.”

City of Phoenix v. Super. Court, Maricopa Cty., 696 P.2d 724 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Among the topics covered by the mental health statutes are court-ordered evaluation, A.R.S. § 36-520 to -531, and court-ordered treatment, A.”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-520(A) — 10 cases

In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 54 P.3d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Pertinent Facts and Procedural History ¶2 On September 6, 2001, an Application for Involuntary Evaluation of appellant was filed pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-520 (1993). By statute, an application for evaluation is the means by which involuntary evaluation and eventually…”

In re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2003-000058, 84 P.3d 489 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “A.R.S. § 36-520(A) (2003). The application must set forth that the person is one who is, “as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or to others, persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled” and is intended for one “who is unwilling or unable to undergo a…”

In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “, applied for a court-ordered mental health evaluation of appellant under A.R.S. § 36-520 (2009) and/or emergency admission for evaluation under A.”

DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 695 P.2d 255 (Ariz. 1985). “Because the liberty of a person alleged by another to be dangerous is at stake, we believe the statutes setting forth the specific course of action to be followed before such a person can be lawfully detained against his or her will, see A.R.S. § 36-520 et seq., must be strictly…”

Est. of Maudsley v. Meta Servs., Inc., 258 P.3d 248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Further, under A.R.S. § 36-520(A) (2009), a “responsible individual” can apply for involuntary evaluation and treatment of another.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-520(B) — 3 cases

In re MH 2008-001795, 218 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 218 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-520(B)(4) — 4 cases

In re MH 2007-001275, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “An application for an involuntary evaluation was also submitted at that time pursuant to AR.S. § 36-520 (2003). See A.R.S. § 36-523(C).”

In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 17 In the civil context, AR.S. §§ 36-520, -521 and -523 work together to require first that an applicant allege that an individual suffers from a mental disorder and is a danger to self, others or is acutely or gravely disabled.”

In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).

In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-520(C) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-520(E) — 2 cases

Appeal in Pima Cnty. Mental Health Case No. MH 1717-1-85, 721 P.2d 142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).

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.