In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Abandonment" means the failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with the child, including providing normal supervision. Abandonment includes a judicial finding that a parent has made only minimal efforts to support and communicate with the child. Failure to maintain a normal parental relationship with the child without just cause for a period of six months constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment.
2. "Agency" means an agency licensed by the division to place children for adoption.
3. "Child" means a person less than eighteen years of age.
4. "Custodian" means a person, other than a parent or legal guardian, who stands in loco parentis to the child or a person to whom legal custody of the child has been given by order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
5. "Custody" or "legal custody" means a status embodying all of the following rights and responsibilities:
(a) The right to have physical possession of the child.
(b) The right and the duty to protect, train and discipline the child.
(c) The responsibility to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care, provided that such rights and responsibilities shall be exercised subject to the powers, rights, duties and responsibilities of the guardian of the person and subject to the residual parental rights and responsibilities if they have not been terminated by judicial decree.
6. "Division" means the department.
7. "Guardian ad litem" means a person appointed by the court to protect the interest of a minor or an incompetent in a particular case before the court.
8. "Guardianship of the person" with respect to a minor means the duty and authority to make important decisions in matters affecting the minor including but not necessarily limited either in number or kind to:
(a) The authority to consent to marriage, to enlistment in the armed forces of the United States and to major medical, psychiatric and surgical treatment, to represent the minor in legal actions and to make other decisions concerning the child of substantial legal significance.
(b) The authority and duty of reasonable visitation, except to the extent that such right of visitation has been limited by court order.
(c) The rights and responsibilities of legal custody, except where legal custody has been vested in another individual or in an authorized agency.
(d) When the parent-child relationship has been terminated by judicial decree with respect to the parents, or only living parent, or when there is no living parent, the authority to consent to the adoption of the child and to make any other decision concerning the child that the child's parents could make.
9. "Juvenile court" means the juvenile division of the superior court.
10. "Parent" means the natural or adoptive mother or father of a child.
11. "Parent-child relationship" includes all rights, privileges, duties and obligations existing between parent and child, including inheritance rights.
12. "Parties" includes the child, the petitioners and any parent of the child required to consent to the adoption pursuant to section 8-106.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
208
cases (
80 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · 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 24× “Nowhere in § 8-531 is religion ever mentioned and, for the reasons outlined above, there is no factual or legal basis for believing the legislature intended such an unstated contradiction to the direct mandate of § 8-512 that dependent children in the state's custody receive…”
Kenneth B. v. Tina B., 243 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 12× “A.R.S. § 8-531(1) (2007). ¶ 15 Kenneth and Kelly argue the superior court erred by requiring evidence of intentional relinquishment to prove abandonment under the statute.”
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L., 365 P.3d 353 (Ariz. 2016).
· cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 8-531(1), -533(B)(1), and found by a preponderance of the evidence that severance was in D.”
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “, A.R.S. § 8-531(12) (1999) (in the context of termination of parental rights, "`[p]arent' means the natural or adoptive mother or father of a child") (emphasis added); A.”
Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 304 P.3d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 8-531(1) (West 2013). ¶ 20 “[Abandonment is measured not by a parent’s subjective intent, but by the parent’s conduct____” Michael J.”
Adrian E. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 369 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 8× “¶ 14 DCS argued in its answering brief on appeal, however, that based on the definition in § 8-531(5), “legal custody” is not synonymous with “legal decision-making,” defined in § 25-401(3), and parenting time, defined in § 25^401(5).”
Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 3× “” AR.S. § 8-531(1). ¶ 14 Bobby asserts that just cause existed for his failure to maintain a relationship with Allison for nearly half of her life because Allison’s mother concealed her from him.”
Adrian E. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 158 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “However, § 8-537(C) falls within article 2, chapter 5 of title 8 (A.R.S. §§ 8-531 through 8-544). The Department did not initiate the termination proceedings involving Nainoa by filing a termination petition under article 2 of chapter 5.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Severance Action No. S-113432, 872 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 9× “On appeal, the father challenges: (1) the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to dismiss; (2) the failure to appoint separate counsel and guardians ad litem for the children; (3) the sufficiency of evidence showing mental abuse absent medical testimony as required by A.R.S. §§…”
Valerie M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 198 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 2× “DISCUSSION ¶ 9 In Arizona, terminations of parent-child relationships are governed by A.R.S. §§ 8-531 to -544. The fact finder must find one or more of the grounds for termination listed in § 8-533(B) by clear and convincing evidence.”
Toni W. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 993 P.2d 462 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Although she admits a failure to provide support, to maintain regular contact, and to maintain a parental relationship with the child, mother contends this failure was not accompanied by an intent to abandon the child “without just cause.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(1) — 153 cases
Kenneth B. v. Tina B., 243 P.3d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“A.R.S. § 8-531(1) (2007). ¶ 15 Kenneth and Kelly argue the superior court erred by requiring evidence of intentional relinquishment to prove abandonment under the statute.”
Demetrius L. v. Joshlynn F./d.L., 365 P.3d 353 (Ariz. 2016).
“, A.R.S. §§ 8-531(1), -533(B)(1), and found by a preponderance of the evidence that severance was in D.”
Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 304 P.3d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“A.R.S. § 8-531(1) (West 2013). ¶ 20 “[Abandonment is measured not by a parent’s subjective intent, but by the parent’s conduct____” Michael J.”
Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“” AR.S. § 8-531(1). ¶ 14 Bobby asserts that just cause existed for his failure to maintain a relationship with Allison for nearly half of her life because Allison’s mother concealed her from him.”
Toni W. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 993 P.2d 462 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“Although she admits a failure to provide support, to maintain regular contact, and to maintain a parental relationship with the child, mother contends this failure was not accompanied by an intent to abandon the child “without just cause.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(10) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(12) — 5 cases
Riepe v. Riepe, 91 P.3d 312 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“, A.R.S. § 8-531(12) (1999) (in the context of termination of parental rights, "`[p]arent' means the natural or adoptive mother or father of a child") (emphasis added); A.”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Severance Action No. S-113432, 872 P.2d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“On appeal, the father challenges: (1) the juvenile court’s denial of his motion to dismiss; (2) the failure to appoint separate counsel and guardians ad litem for the children; (3) the sufficiency of evidence showing mental abuse absent medical testimony as required by A.R.S. §§…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(2) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(3) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(4) — 4 cases
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Nowhere in § 8-531 is religion ever mentioned and, for the reasons outlined above, there is no factual or legal basis for believing the legislature intended such an unstated contradiction to the direct mandate of § 8-512 that dependent children in the state's custody receive…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(5) — 7 cases
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Nowhere in § 8-531 is religion ever mentioned and, for the reasons outlined above, there is no factual or legal basis for believing the legislature intended such an unstated contradiction to the direct mandate of § 8-512 that dependent children in the state's custody receive…”
Adrian E. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 369 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶ 14 DCS argued in its answering brief on appeal, however, that based on the definition in § 8-531(5), “legal custody” is not synonymous with “legal decision-making,” defined in § 25-401(3), and parenting time, defined in § 25^401(5).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(5)(a) — 1 case
Adrian E. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 369 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“¶ 14 DCS argued in its answering brief on appeal, however, that based on the definition in § 8-531(5), “legal custody” is not synonymous with “legal decision-making,” defined in § 25-401(3), and parenting time, defined in § 25^401(5).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(5)(c) — 3 cases
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Nowhere in § 8-531 is religion ever mentioned and, for the reasons outlined above, there is no factual or legal basis for believing the legislature intended such an unstated contradiction to the direct mandate of § 8-512 that dependent children in the state's custody receive…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(5)(e) — 1 case
DIANA H. v. Rubin, 171 P.3d 200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Nowhere in § 8-531 is religion ever mentioned and, for the reasons outlined above, there is no factual or legal basis for believing the legislature intended such an unstated contradiction to the direct mandate of § 8-512 that dependent children in the state's custody receive…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(7) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(8) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(8)(a) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(9) — 7 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(A) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-531(A)(1) — 3 cases
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.