36-530. Evaluation and treatment
A. A person who is admitted to an evaluation agency shall receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the court's order for evaluation and, subject to the provisions of sections 36-512 and 36-513 concerning the person's right to refuse treatment, receive care and treatment as required by the person's condition for the full period that the person is hospitalized. A clinical record shall be kept for each person that details all medical and psychiatric evaluations and all care and treatment received by the person.
B. A person receiving an evaluation on an inpatient basis will remain in the facility during the evaluation, which shall be completed in less than seventy-two hours. Unless the person is released or admitted on a voluntary basis, the filing of the petition for court-ordered treatment shall be completed within seventy-two hours, excluding weekends and holidays.
C. A person being evaluated on an outpatient basis will not remain in the facility overnight but will be examined during the usual outpatient working hours of the facility on a schedule of appointments. The evaluation will be completed not later than the fourth day after the first appointment, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.
D. If a person who has been directed by court order to appear for evaluation does not appear, or in the case of an outpatient evaluation does not complete the appointments scheduled, the evaluation agency shall notify the court and the person's guardian, if any, of the known facts and circumstances and, if appropriate, request that the court order the patient taken into custody for evaluation on an inpatient basis.
E. In the course of conducting an evaluation, the evaluation agency shall solicit, accept and consider information relevant to the present behavior and past behavioral health history of the proposed patient from persons known to the agency who have a significant relationship with the proposed patient, including family members and guardians.
Notes of Decisions
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr. Inc., 695 P.2d 255 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 36-530 provides that once a person is admitted to an evaluation agency, he or she: “shall receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the court’s order for evaluation and receive care and treatment as required by his condition for the full period that he is being…”
DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Ctr., Inc., 695 P.2d 270 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “The specific safeguards and precautions owed to a person such as the *30 decedent are contained in A.R.S. § 36-530 (1974). [*] A person admitted to an evaluation agency shall receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the court's order for evaluation and receive care and…”
Cohen v. Maricopa Cnty., 263 P.3d 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “The court noted that while Yuma County was statutorily authorized to contract with other entities to provide such services, “the statute does not authorize the county to delegate its duty to provide proper care and treatment under A.R.S. § 36-530” and “[w]hen a county contracts…”
In re MH 2008-000028, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “¶ 5 After making these findings, the court ordered the following: IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be immediately taken into custody by the Sheriff and shall be immediately transported to Desert Vista Behavioral Health Center for inpatient evaluation pursuant to A.R.S. §…”
In Re Mh2010-002348, 268 P.3d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “At the Rule 11 hearing, the court also ordered the patient to be taken for inpatient evaluation pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-530. Id. at ¶ 5. The State filed an “Application for Involuntary Evaluation.”
In Re Mh 2008-002393, 221 P.3d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “3 DISCUSSION ¶ 10 Appellant asserts he was illegally detained “for over 12 days” and asks that we vacate the October 23, 2008 treatment order because: (1) his due process rights were violated; (2) A.”
In Re Mh2014-002674, 358 P.3d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 36-530(B). And like the other requirements for involuntary treatment proceedings, it is one that requires strict compliance.”
In re MH 2008-001795, 218 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 36-530(B) (2009). If the evaluators determine that the person is a danger to self or others, they may file a petition for court-ordered treatment.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 211 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “¶ 5 After making these findings, the court ordered the following: IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant shall be immediately taken into custody by the Sheriff and shall be immediately transported to Desert Vista Behavioral Health Center for inpatient evaluation pursuant to A.R.S. §…”
Amick v. Banner Health (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “6, 8 (1985) (county had a non-delegable duty to provide mental health evaluation and treatment to an involuntarily detained mental-hold patient pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-530); Cooke v. Berlin, 153 Ariz.”
In Re: Mh2025-006777 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 2× “shown a failure to comply with A.R.S. § 36-530 (addressing evaluation and treatment).”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 218 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 36-530(B) (2009). If the evaluators determine that the person is a danger to self or others, they may file a petition for court-ordered treatment.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-530(B) — 3 cases
In Re Mh2014-002674, 358 P.3d 609 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“A.R.S. § 36-530(B). And like the other requirements for involuntary treatment proceedings, it is one that requires strict compliance.”
In re MH 2008-001795, 218 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“A.R.S. § 36-530(B) (2009). If the evaluators determine that the person is a danger to self or others, they may file a petition for court-ordered treatment.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 218 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“A.R.S. § 36-530(B) (2009). If the evaluators determine that the person is a danger to self or others, they may file a petition for court-ordered treatment.”
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.