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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-451 (2026)

Department; purpose

✓ 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

8-451. Department; purpose

A. The department of child safety is established.

B. The primary purpose of the department is to protect children.  To achieve this purpose, the department shall do and focus equally on the following:

1. Investigate reports of abuse and neglect.

2. Assess, promote and support the safety of a child in a safe and stable family or other appropriate placement in response to allegations of abuse or neglect.

3. Work cooperatively with law enforcement regarding reports that include criminal conduct allegations.

4. Without compromising child safety, coordinate services to achieve and maintain permanency on behalf of the child, strengthen the family and provide prevention, intervention and treatment services pursuant to this chapter.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: Lorenz v. State, 364 P.3d 475 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lorenz v. State, 364 P.3d 475 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Consistent with this overarching purpose, each of the statutes and regulations Grandparents cite makes clear that the intent is to protect dependent children, not the interests of potential foster or adoptive placements. ¶ 15 A.”
Alma S. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 418 P.3d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “2d 551 (1972) ; A.R.S. §§ 8-451, -457; Mary Lou C. v. Ariz.”
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “But like all state agencies, the Department is not vested with unlimited power to attain the ends with which it is tasked—there are limits. ¶16 The same goes for the juvenile court, which may exercise jurisdiction only when constitutional or statutory text grants it.”
Ploof v. Thal, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0065 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2023). · cites it 4× “In other words, based on the plain text of the statutory scheme, the legislature crafted it to protect children, not to protect parents and their recourse under tort law. See Lorenz v.”
Lemay v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0484 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2022). · cites it 3× “Before DCS places an individual’s name on the Registry, it must notify the individual of its intention to do so; and inform the accused of his or her right to request a hearing.”
Rosenberg v. Conzoner, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0514-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2022). · cites it 2× “¶19 Third, mother contends the superior court violated her due process rights when it admitted a therapist’s email into evidence over her objection.”
In re Term of Parental Rights as to A.F., No. 1 CA-JV 23-0175 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2024). · cites it 2×
Neeley v. Arizona, State of, No. 2:19-cv-05899 (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2022). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 8-451–8- 23 892. Therefore, DCS may not be sued, and the state law claims against it are dismissed 24 with prejudice.”
Macias v. Kaplan-Seikmann, No. 2:22-cv-00280 (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2022). · cites it 2× “23, 2017) (citing A.R.S. §§ 8-451 to -892); see also 26 Neeley v.”
Campbell v. Hobbs, No. 2:23-cv-00348 (D. Ariz. Apr. 6, 2023). · cites it 2× “24 See A.R.S. §§ 8-451–8-892. Therefore, DCS may not be sued, and the claims against it 25 are dismissed with prejudice.”
Beas-Campo v. Case, No. 4:23-cv-00199 (D. Ariz. June 22, 2023). · cites it 2× “23, 2017) (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 8-451 to -892); see also Neeley v.”
Stevens v. Arizona, State of, No. 2:23-cv-00770 (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2024). · cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-451 to -892; 23 East v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-451(A): 1 case
Ploof v. Thal, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0065 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2023). “In other words, based on the plain text of the statutory scheme, the legislature crafted it to protect children, not to protect parents and their recourse under tort law. See Lorenz v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-451(B): 4 cases
Lorenz v. State, 364 P.3d 475 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Consistent with this overarching purpose, each of the statutes and regulations Grandparents cite makes clear that the intent is to protect dependent children, not the interests of potential foster or adoptive placements. ¶ 15 A.”
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “But like all state agencies, the Department is not vested with unlimited power to attain the ends with which it is tasked—there are limits. ¶16 The same goes for the juvenile court, which may exercise jurisdiction only when constitutional or statutory text grants it.”
Ploof v. Thal, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0065 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2023). “In other words, based on the plain text of the statutory scheme, the legislature crafted it to protect children, not to protect parents and their recourse under tort law. See Lorenz v.”
In re Term of Parental Rights as to A.F., No. 1 CA-JV 23-0175 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2024).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-451(B)(1): 1 case
Lemay v. Dcs, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0484 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2022). “Before DCS places an individual’s name on the Registry, it must notify the individual of its intention to do so; and inform the accused of his or her right to request a hearing.”
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.