Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-122 (2026)

Financial hardship; deferral, waiver or reduction of fees

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

The court, an agency or the division may voluntarily defer, waive or reduce any fee if payment of the fee would cause a hardship to the adoptive parent or would be detrimental to the welfare of the adoptive child.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1977–1982 · leading case: Matter of Appeal in Pima Cnty. Etc., 575 P.2d 310 (Ariz. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Appeal in Pima Cnty. Etc., 575 P.2d 310 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 4× “§ 8-122, providing that an appeal in an adoption matter shall be governed by the same provisions applicable to appeals from the Superior Court, was superseded by the issuance of this court's rules governing appeals from the Juvenile Court.”
State v. Garza, 623 P.2d 367 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “Because the supreme court had not exercised its rulemaking authority in this specific area, the statutory procedure providing for appeals as in other civil cases pursuant to former A.R.S. § 8-122 was held applicable. In light of the supreme court’s holding and the fact that art.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Actions Nos. J-86384 & JS-2605, 594 P.2d 104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “In reaching this conclusion, the court stated: “We do not, however, find a conflict between A.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. A-26961, 660 P.2d 479 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “3 Thus, the trial court’s order of January 20, 1982, cannot be considered a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding but must be viewed solely as an order determining whether parental consent had been given in an adoption proceeding. The procedure applicable to appeals in…”
Clark v. Curran, 575 P.2d 326 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “There, Division I of this court indicated through dictum that Rule 25, Supreme Court Rules of Juvenile Court, vitiates A.R.S. § 8-122, which states that appeals from adoption orders shall be as in other civil cases.”
Clark v. Curran, 575 P.2d 310 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 4× “§ 8-101(6), has placed jurisdiction of adoption matters in the Juvenile Court, appellees contend that A.R.S. § 8-122, providing that an appeal in an adoption matter shall be governed by the same provisions applicable to appeals from the Superior Court, was superseded by the…”
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.