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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-517 (2026)

Withdrawal from foster home

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

The division or agency that placed the child may withdraw a child from a foster home only when the division or agency determines that withdrawal is according to written, specific standards and is clearly necessary for the child's interests and welfare. The division may change the placement of a child made pursuant to section 8-514.02 if the change is necessary for the child's best interests and welfare.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1972–2018 · leading case: Dep't of Child Saf. v. Beene, 332 P.3d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Child Saf. v. Beene, 332 P.3d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “”); AR.S. § 8-517 (allowing change in foster placement if “necessary for the child’s [best] interests and welfare”); AR.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. JD-6236, 874 P.2d 1006 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “02, respectively, DES may place such children in foster homes or with a relative.”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. J-57445, 691 P.2d 1116 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 8-517. As we have previously indicated, the provisions of A.”
Tinsley v. McKay, 156 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (D. Ariz. 2015). · cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. § 8-517 (“The division or agency that placed the *1029 child may withdraw a child from a foster home [] when the division or agency determines that withdrawal is according to written, specific standards and is clearly necessary for the child’s interests and…”
Hanson v. Rowe, 500 P.2d 916 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 8-519, A.R.S. § 8-517, was couched in exactly the same language as A.”
Jewel C. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 418 P.3d 1120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 8-514.02, including a placement with a relative, "if the change is necessary for the child's best interests and welfare.”
Frank G., Annette G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “They further argue that, because DCS recommended returning J.H. to them and because the court found no safety concerns, it erred by granting custody of J.”
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.