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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-243 (2026)

Expenses of child services; parent liability prohibited

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. The supreme court shall administer the activities, including providing the cost of services, for children who are referred to the juvenile court as incorrigible or delinquent and who are placed in foster care other than in a state institution or who require shelter care or treatment.  If the juvenile court places a referred child in foster care or orders a referred child to participate in treatment or an education program or if a probation officer requires a child to comply with a program pursuant to section 8-321, subsection F, the juvenile court may not order the child or the child's parent or guardian to bear the charge or expense of the foster care, treatment, education program or program required pursuant to section 8-321, subsection F. 

B. If the juvenile court awards or commits a child to the department of juvenile corrections or other state department or institution, the juvenile court may not order the child or the child's parent or guardian to bear the charge, expense and maintenance, including the medical, dental and mental health care of the child while the child is committed to the custody of the department of juvenile corrections or other public or private institution or agency, or private person or persons.

C. If the juvenile court awards or commits a child to a juvenile detention facility, the juvenile court may not order the child or the child's parent or guardian to bear the charge, expense and maintenance, including food, clothing, shelter and supervision of the child while the child is detained in a juvenile detention facility.

D. This section does not prevent a health insurer that is subject to title 20 or an Arizona health care cost containment system contractor from covering an expense that is related to the child's treatment or care.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1989–1990 · leading case: Creative Learning Sys., Inc. v. State, 800 P.2d 50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Creative Learning Sys., Inc. v. State, 800 P.2d 50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 16× “Counts three through five alleged promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and A.R.S. § 8-243 as the respective grounds for recovery against the state.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-500325, 788 P.2d 1206 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “This statute allows the Juvenile Court to assess parents, according to their financial status, an amount for the cost of their child’s care while the child is committed to the custody of a state agency. However, this does not warrant appellants’ conclusion that their financial…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-243(A): 1 case
Creative Learning Sys., Inc. v. State, 800 P.2d 50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “Counts three through five alleged promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and A.R.S. § 8-243 as the respective grounds for recovery against the state.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-243(B): 1 case
Creative Learning Sys., Inc. v. State, 800 P.2d 50 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “Counts three through five alleged promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and A.R.S. § 8-243 as the respective grounds for recovery against the state.”
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.