A. If, from the review of the petition for evaluation, the court does not determine that the proposed patient is likely to present a danger to self or others or further deteriorate before the proposed patient's hearing on court-ordered treatment, but determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that the proposed patient is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or others or has a persistent or acute disability or a grave disability, the court shall issue an order directing the proposed patient to submit to an evaluation at a designated time and place, specifying that the evaluation will take place on an inpatient or an outpatient basis. The court may also order that, if the person does not or cannot so submit, the person be taken into custody by a peace officer and delivered to an evaluation agency. If the court makes such a conditional order, it shall also make a conditional appointment of counsel for the person to become effective when and if the person is taken into custody pursuant to this section.
B. If, from review of the petition for evaluation, there is reasonable cause to believe that the proposed patient is, as a result of a mental disorder, a danger to self or others or has a persistent or acute disability or a grave disability and that the person requires immediate or continued hospitalization before the proposed patient's hearing on court-ordered treatment, the court shall order the proposed patient taken into custody and evaluated at an evaluation agency. The court shall promptly appoint counsel for the proposed patient. If an intercounty agreement authorizes the same, the court may order that the evaluation be conducted in another county, and the superior court in the county where the evaluation is conducted has concurrent jurisdiction to make appropriate orders concerning the proposed patient.
C. If the person is not taken into custody or if the evaluation pursuant to the order of the court under subsection A or B of this section is not initiated within fourteen days after the date of the order, the order and petition for evaluation expire. If a prosecutor filed a petition pursuant to section 13-4517, the court and the prosecuting agency shall receive notice of the expiration of the order for evaluation. The court may enter any orders necessary for further disposition pursuant to section 13-4517, including a pickup order directing that the person be taken into custody. This subsection does not prevent any person from initiating another court-ordered evaluation of the person pursuant to this chapter.
D. If the person is involuntarily hospitalized, the person shall be informed by the person's appointed attorney of the right to a hearing to determine whether the person should be involuntarily hospitalized for evaluation and to be represented at the hearing by an attorney. If the person requests a hearing to determine whether the person should be involuntarily hospitalized during evaluation, the court shall schedule a hearing at its earliest opportunity.
E. A copy of any order issued by the court pursuant to subsection A or B of this section, together with a copy of the petition for court-ordered evaluation, shall be personally served on the proposed patient as prescribed by law or court rule or as ordered by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 16× “” AR.S. § 36-529(A) (2009). However, if the court determines that there is reasonable cause for an evaluation but that the proposed patient “requires immediate or continued hospitalization prior to his hearing on court-ordered treatment,” the court “shall order the proposed…”
City of Phoenix v. Super. Court, Maricopa Cty., 696 P.2d 724 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 14× “The order signed by Judge Myers appears to have been issued pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-529, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: A.”
Cooke v. Berlin, 735 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “Again, it is conceded that at the time Robinson was under treatment by SAMHC she was not committable under A.R.S. § 36-529(B) as posing a danger to herself or to others.”
In re MH 2006-000023, 150 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-529(A) (2003). The order was served on J.”
In Re Mh-2008-000867, 236 P.3d 405 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 36-529 (2009). Drs. F and H performed the evaluations, after which Dr.”
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “*282 See A.R.S. § 36-529(B). But, when, as here, the court first acts pursuant to A.”
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini & T.J., 334 P.3d 761 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “n title 36 governs mental health services and authorizes the appointment of counsel only when (1) a court grants a petition for a court-ordered, custodial evaluation of a proposed patient upon finding reasonable cause to believe that he or she “is, as a result of a mental…”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 120 P.3d 210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-529. Appellant was detained and evaluated by two doctors.”
In Re Mh 2008-002393, 221 P.3d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-529(B), (D) (2009). ¶ 15 If, as here, a new PCOE and PCOT are filed, the ensuing treatment order should not be dismissed unless the patient demonstrates he did not receive a fair hearing because of his illegal detention.”
In re MH 2004-001987, 120 P.3d 210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-529. Appellant was detained and evaluated by two doctors.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-529(A) — 10 cases
In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“” AR.S. § 36-529(A) (2009). However, if the court determines that there is reasonable cause for an evaluation but that the proposed patient “requires immediate or continued hospitalization prior to his hearing on court-ordered treatment,” the court “shall order the proposed…”
In re MH 2006-000023, 150 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“A.R.S. § 36-529(A) (2003). The order was served on J.”
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini & T.J., 334 P.3d 761 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“n title 36 governs mental health services and authorizes the appointment of counsel only when (1) a court grants a petition for a court-ordered, custodial evaluation of a proposed patient upon finding reasonable cause to believe that he or she “is, as a result of a mental…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-529(B) — 12 cases
Cooke v. Berlin, 735 P.2d 830 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“Again, it is conceded that at the time Robinson was under treatment by SAMHC she was not committable under A.R.S. § 36-529(B) as posing a danger to herself or to others.”
In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“” AR.S. § 36-529(A) (2009). However, if the court determines that there is reasonable cause for an evaluation but that the proposed patient “requires immediate or continued hospitalization prior to his hearing on court-ordered treatment,” the court “shall order the proposed…”
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“*282 See A.R.S. § 36-529(B). But, when, as here, the court first acts pursuant to A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-529(D) — 2 cases
In Re Mh 2008-002659, 226 P.3d 394 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“” AR.S. § 36-529(A) (2009). However, if the court determines that there is reasonable cause for an evaluation but that the proposed patient “requires immediate or continued hospitalization prior to his hearing on court-ordered treatment,” the court “shall order the proposed…”
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.