A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or chapter 4, articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of this title:
1. A child who in good faith is being furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited practitioner shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to be an abused, neglected or dependent child.
2. A child whose parent, guardian or custodian refuses to put the child on a psychiatric medication or questions the use of a psychiatric medication shall not be considered to be an abused, neglected or dependent child for that reason alone.
B. A parent may not be considered as having abused, neglected or abandoned or charged with abuse, neglect or abandonment of a biological, foster or adoptive child solely for seeking inpatient treatment or an out-of-home placement if the child's behavioral health needs pose a risk to the safety and welfare of the family.
C. A parent may not be considered as having abused or neglected or charged with abuse or neglect of a child solely for bringing into the home a biological, foster or adoptive child whose behavioral health needs pose a risk to the safety and welfare of the family.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2022 · leading case:
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 8-201.01(1) ("A child who in good faith is being furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited practitioner shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to be an abused, neglected or dependent child.”
In Re the Appeal in Cochise Cnty. Juv. Action No. 5666-J, 650 P.2d 459 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 8-201.01: “Prohibition “Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no child who in good faith is being furnished Christian science treatment by a duly accredited practitioner shall, for that reason alone, be considered to be an abused, neglected or dependent…”
Shani R. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “, and (3) because she was afraid for her own health and welfare, A.R.S. § 8-201.01(B) prevents a neglect finding.”
Diana H. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “As noted, Arizona’s immunization statutes expressly honor and empower that particular parental interest. Even in the child dependency context, our legislature has elevated the religious rights of a parent above its own interest in assuring children access to conventional medical…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-201.01(1) — 2 cases
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“See A.R.S. § 8-201.01(1) ("A child who in good faith is being furnished Christian Science treatment by a duly accredited practitioner shall not, for that reason alone, be considered to be an abused, neglected or dependent child.”
Diana H. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“As noted, Arizona’s immunization statutes expressly honor and empower that particular parental interest. Even in the child dependency context, our legislature has elevated the religious rights of a parent above its own interest in assuring children access to conventional medical…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-201.01(B) — 1 case
Shani R. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“, and (3) because she was afraid for her own health and welfare, A.R.S. § 8-201.01(B) prevents a neglect finding.”
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.