36-536. Service of petition, affidavit and notice of hearing; counsel for proposed patient; notice; personal service; guardian
A. At least seventy-two hours before the court conducts the hearing on the petition for court-ordered treatment, a copy of the petition, affidavits in support of the petition and the notice of the hearing shall be served on the patient, who shall be informed of the purpose of the hearing and advised of the patient's right to consult counsel. If the patient has not employed counsel, counsel shall be appointed by the court at least three days before the hearing. If at the time of the petition for evaluation the patient had counsel, the same attorney should, if possible, be appointed to represent the patient at the hearing for court-ordered treatment.
B. The notice provisions of this section cannot be waived.
C. The notice of the hearing shall fix the time and place for the hearing, which shall be held in the courtroom or other place within the county that the court designates to ensure humane treatment with due regard to the comfort and safety of the patient and others.
D. A copy of the petition, affidavits in support of the petition and notice of hearing shall be personally served on the proposed patient as prescribed by law or court rule or as ordered by the court.
E. The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition, affidavits in support of the petition and the notice of the hearing on any guardian identified in the petition. In lieu of personal service, a guardian may provide a written acknowledgment that the guardian has received the documents. The petitioner shall complete service on the guardian at least two calendar days before the hearing on the petition, but failure to serve the guardian is not grounds for dismissing the petition.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 1996–2017 · leading case:
In re MH 2006-000023, 150 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
In re MH 2006-000023, 150 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 9× “¶ 11 Despite this clear statutory directive, the trial court did not give and J.B. did not receive notice at least 72 hours before the hearing but 30 hours’ fewer.”
In re MH 2006-000749, 152 P.3d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “¶ 31 A.R.S. § 36-536(A) (2003) required that Appellant be personally served with notice of the hearing, but there is no evidence in the record that Appellant understood the nature of the proceeding or that she understood the significance of her failure to attend it.”
In Re Jesse M., 170 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “¶ 12 Section 36-536 provides that before a hearing for court-ordered treatment can occur, the patient must receive a copy of the petition, the supporting affidavits, “and the notice of the hearing,” and the court shall advise the patient “of his right to consult counsel.”
In Re Pinal Cnty. Mental Health No. Mh-201000029, 240 P.3d 1262 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “2007) (vacating involuntary treatment order because patient not provided timely notice as required by A.R.S. § 36-536, and statute specifically prohibited waiver of such notice).”
In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 54 P.3d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Thus, we hold that, in those cases where there is such an affidavit, it must “accompany” the petition for treatment and be served as part of that petition pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-536(A) (1993). Simply being present in the file does not suffice.”
In re MH 2007-001275, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Unlike the notice requirement in A.R.S. § 36-536, which the legislature explicitly stated cannot be waived, A.”
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini & T.J., 334 P.3d 761 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Accordingly, we decline to construe a § 13-925 proceeding as a “mental disorder hearing” encompassed by the PCPD’s previous, completed appointment pursuant to § 36-536. ¶ 13 We nonetheless are unable to resolve, based solely on statutory analysis, whether the respondent judge…”
In re MH 2009-001264, 229 P.3d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “) Additionally, the pre-evaluation notification provided to Appellant, which is entitled “Notice of Right to Choose Evaluating Psychiatrist” and allowed Appellant to “select one of the physicians assigned to evaluate” him, lists both of Appellant’s evaluating physicians as…”
In re MH 2007-001264, 189 P.3d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“at 249, ¶ 12 , 150 P.3d at 1270 . In so doing the court found: “Strict compliance” with the simple requirement of 72 hours’ pre-hearing notice is an absolute statutory duty imposed on behalf of the individual who is the subject of the hearing, on her counsel, [and] on the State…”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 196 P.3d 819 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Unlike the notice requirement in A.R.S. § 36-536, which the legislature explicitly stated cannot be waived, A.”
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx, 229 P.3d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “) Additionally, the pre-evaluation notification provided to Appellant, which is entitled "Notice of Right to Choose Evaluating Psychiatrist" and allowed Appellant to "select one of the physicians assigned to evaluate" him, lists both of Appellant's evaluating physicians as…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-536(A) — 10 cases
In re MH 2006-000749, 152 P.3d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 31 A.R.S. § 36-536(A) (2003) required that Appellant be personally served with notice of the hearing, but there is no evidence in the record that Appellant understood the nature of the proceeding or that she understood the significance of her failure to attend it.”
In Re Maricopa Cnty. Superior Court No. MH 2001-001139, 54 P.3d 380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“” Thus, we hold that, in those cases where there is such an affidavit, it must “accompany” the petition for treatment and be served as part of that petition pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-536(A) (1993). Simply being present in the file does not suffice.”
In re MH 2006-000023, 150 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 11 Despite this clear statutory directive, the trial court did not give and J.B. did not receive notice at least 72 hours before the hearing but 30 hours’ fewer.”
Pinal Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Georgini & T.J., 334 P.3d 761 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Accordingly, we decline to construe a § 13-925 proceeding as a “mental disorder hearing” encompassed by the PCPD’s previous, completed appointment pursuant to § 36-536. ¶ 13 We nonetheless are unable to resolve, based solely on statutory analysis, whether the respondent judge…”
In re MH 2009-001264, 229 P.3d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“) Additionally, the pre-evaluation notification provided to Appellant, which is entitled “Notice of Right to Choose Evaluating Psychiatrist” and allowed Appellant to “select one of the physicians assigned to evaluate” him, lists both of Appellant’s evaluating physicians as…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-536(B) — 2 cases
In re MH 2006-000023, 150 P.3d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 11 Despite this clear statutory directive, the trial court did not give and J.B. did not receive notice at least 72 hours before the hearing but 30 hours’ fewer.”
In Re Jesse M., 170 P.3d 683 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“¶ 12 Section 36-536 provides that before a hearing for court-ordered treatment can occur, the patient must receive a copy of the petition, the supporting affidavits, “and the notice of the hearing,” and the court shall advise the patient “of his right to consult counsel.”
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.