Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-515.05

Removal of child from foster parent's home; requirements; notification; review

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

8-515.05. Removal of child from foster parent's home; requirements; notification; review

A. Unless a child is removed from a licensed foster parent, excluding a shelter care provider and receiving foster parent, to protect the child from harm or risk of harm, to place a child in a permanent placement, to reunite siblings, to place a child in a kinship foster home, to place a child in the least restrictive setting, to place a child in a therapeutic setting or to place a child in accordance with the Indian child welfare act (25 United States Code section 1915), the department shall inform the licensed foster parent of the department's intent to remove a child and place the child in another foster care placement.  The department shall inform the licensed foster parent of the specific reason for the child's planned removal from the licensed foster parent.

B. If the licensed foster parent disagrees with the removal, the licensed foster parent shall notify the department within twenty-four hours of being informed.  If the licensed foster parent disagrees with the plan to remove the child and place the child in another foster home placement, the department shall convene a case conference to review the reasons for the removal.  The licensed foster parent and two members of the foster care review board shall participate in the case conference.  A child shall not be removed unless a majority of the members who participate in the case conference agree that removal is necessary.

C. The department shall inform the licensed foster parent and the foster care review board of the time, date and location of the case conference to review the planned removal.  The case conference shall be held within seventy-two hours after the licensed foster parent notifies the department that the licensed foster parent disagrees with the planned removal, excluding weekends and holidays.  The child shall remain in the current placement pending the outcome of the case conference.

D. If, as a result of the case conference, it is the department's continued intent to move the child pursuant to subsection A and the licensed foster parent continues to disagree and the child:

1. Is in the court ordered physical custody of the licensed foster parent, a foster care review board member shall provide a recommendation to the court regarding the removal of the child before the change of physical custody. The child shall remain in the current placement pending a court order for removal.

2. Is not in the physical custody of the licensed foster parent, the licensed foster parent shall be advised of the department's conflict resolution process.  The department shall expedite the conflict resolution process.  The child shall remain in the current placement pending the outcome of the conflict resolution process.

E. The department may not use as the basis for removing a foster child from a licensed foster parent the foster parent's request to disrupt a foster child or the dissolution of an adoption that occurred based on either of the following:

1. The foster or adoptive parent was unable to receive services that the child was statutorily entitled to receive.

2. The foster or adoptive child threatened the health or safety of the family.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2024 · leading case: Tinsley v. McKay
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tinsley v. McKay (2015) azd · cites it 8× “DCS also determines the eligibility and licensing procedures for foster homes and is responsible for supervising those homes. A.R.S. §§ 8-503(4)(b)-(h); 8-509; 8-516.”
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs (2020) arizctapp · cites it 31× “¶16 In response to Foster Parents’ petition, DCS argues that A.R.S. § 8-515.05 does not “address an independent juvenile court order removing a dependent child from a foster-care placement.”
Simmons v. Temple (2024) arizctapp · cites it 6× “TEMPLE Decision of the Court she was entitled to a hearing under A.R.S. § 8-515.05 and a declaration that the policy requiring foster parents to respond to DCS inquiries within 24 hours is “unrealistic.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-515.05(A) — 2 cases
Tinsley v. McKay (2015) azd “DCS also determines the eligibility and licensing procedures for foster homes and is responsible for supervising those homes. A.R.S. §§ 8-503(4)(b)-(h); 8-509; 8-516.”
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs (2020) arizctapp “¶16 In response to Foster Parents’ petition, DCS argues that A.R.S. § 8-515.05 does not “address an independent juvenile court order removing a dependent child from a foster-care placement.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-515.05(B) — 3 cases
Tinsley v. McKay (2015) azd “DCS also determines the eligibility and licensing procedures for foster homes and is responsible for supervising those homes. A.R.S. §§ 8-503(4)(b)-(h); 8-509; 8-516.”
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs (2020) arizctapp “¶16 In response to Foster Parents’ petition, DCS argues that A.R.S. § 8-515.05 does not “address an independent juvenile court order removing a dependent child from a foster-care placement.”
Simmons v. Temple (2024) arizctapp “TEMPLE Decision of the Court she was entitled to a hearing under A.R.S. § 8-515.05 and a declaration that the policy requiring foster parents to respond to DCS inquiries within 24 hours is “unrealistic.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-515.05(C) — 1 case
Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs (2020) arizctapp “¶16 In response to Foster Parents’ petition, DCS argues that A.R.S. § 8-515.05 does not “address an independent juvenile court order removing a dependent child from a foster-care placement.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-515.05(D) — 1 case
Tinsley v. McKay (2015) azd “DCS also determines the eligibility and licensing procedures for foster homes and is responsible for supervising those homes. A.R.S. §§ 8-503(4)(b)-(h); 8-509; 8-516.”
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.