A. Any person or agency that has a legitimate interest in the welfare of a child, including a relative, a foster parent, a physician, the department or a private licensed child welfare agency, may file a petition for the termination of the parent-child relationship alleging grounds contained in subsection B of this section.
B. Evidence sufficient to justify the termination of the parent-child relationship shall include any one of the following, and in considering any of the following grounds, the court shall also consider the best interests of the child:
1. That the parent has abandoned the child.
2. That the parent has neglected or wilfully abused a child. This abuse includes serious physical or emotional injury or situations in which the parent knew or reasonably should have known that a person was abusing or neglecting a child.
3. That the parent is unable to discharge parental responsibilities because of mental illness, mental deficiency or a history of chronic abuse of dangerous drugs, controlled substances or alcohol and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the condition will continue for a prolonged indeterminate period.
4. That the parent is deprived of civil liberties due to the conviction of a felony if the felony of which that parent was convicted is of such nature as to prove the unfitness of that parent to have future custody and control of the child, including murder of another child of the parent, manslaughter of another child of the parent or aiding or abetting or attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit murder or manslaughter of another child of the parent, or if the sentence of that parent is of such length that the child will be deprived of a normal home for a period of years.
5. That the potential father failed to file a paternity action within thirty days of completion of service of notice as prescribed in section 8-106, subsection G.
6. That the putative father failed to file a notice of claim of paternity as prescribed in section 8-106.01.
7. That the parents have relinquished their rights to a child to an agency or have consented to the adoption.
8. That the child is being cared for in an out-of-home placement under the supervision of the juvenile court, the division or a licensed child welfare agency, that the agency responsible for the care of the child has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services and that one of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of nine months or longer pursuant to court order or voluntary placement pursuant to section 8-806 and the parent has substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement.
(b) The child who is under three years of age has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of six months or longer pursuant to court order and the parent has substantially neglected or wilfully refused to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement, including refusal to participate in reunification services offered by the department.
(c) The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period of fifteen months or longer pursuant to court order or voluntary placement pursuant to section 8-806, the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances that cause the child to be in an out-of-home placement and there is a substantial likelihood that the parent will not be capable of exercising proper and effective parental care and control in the near future.
9. That the identity of the parent is unknown and continues to be unknown following three months of diligent efforts to identify and locate the parent.
10. That the parent has had parental rights to another child terminated within the preceding two years for the same cause and is currently unable to discharge parental responsibilities due to the same cause.
11. That all of the following are true:
(a) The child was cared for in an out-of-home placement pursuant to court order.
(b) The agency responsible for the care of the child made diligent efforts to provide appropriate reunification services.
(c) The child, pursuant to court order, was returned to the legal custody of the parent from whom the child had been removed.
(d) Within eighteen months after the child was returned, pursuant to court order, the child was removed from that parent's legal custody, the child is being cared for in an out-of-home placement under the supervision of the juvenile court, the division or a licensed child welfare agency and the parent is currently unable to discharge parental responsibilities.
12. Clear and convincing evidence that the parent committed a sexual assault against the petitioning parent and the child was conceived as a result of the sexual assault. If the parent who is the subject of the petition pleads guilty to or is convicted of a violation of section 13-1406 or a violation of an offense in another jurisdiction that if committed in this state would be a violation of section 13-1406, the court may accept the guilty plea or conviction as evidence that the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault by that parent. For the purposes of this paragraph:
(a) "Oral sexual contact" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1401.
(b) "Sexual assault" means intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with a person without the consent of that person.
(c) "Sexual intercourse" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1401.
C. Evidence considered by the court pursuant to subsection B of this section shall include any substantiated allegations of abuse or neglect committed in another jurisdiction.
D. In considering the grounds for termination prescribed in subsection B, paragraph 8 or 11 of this section, the court shall consider the availability of reunification services to the parent and the participation of the parent in these services.
E. In considering the grounds for termination prescribed in subsection B, paragraph 8 of this section, the court shall not consider the first sixty days of the initial out-of-home placement pursuant to section 8-806 in the cumulative total period.
F. The failure of an alleged parent who is not the child's legal parent to take a test requested by the department or ordered by the court to determine if the person is the child's natural parent is prima facie evidence of abandonment unless good cause is shown by the alleged parent for that failure.
Notes of Decisions
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 83 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 27× “¶ 9 Additionally, we review de novo legal issues requiring the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 8-533. See Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.”
E.R. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 344 P.3d 842 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 40× “to provide [a] child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” ¶ 14 Moreover, the juvenile court’s construction of A.”
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D., 444 P.3d 258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 22× “¶27 The first issue that must be reviewed under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8) is the “circumstance” causing out-of-home placement.”
Jordan C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 219 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “At the court’s direction, ADES filed a motion to terminate Michele’s parental rights to her two youngest children on grounds of disabling mental illness or chronic drug abuse, see § 8-533(B)(3), and fifteen-month, time-in-care, see § 8-533(B)(8)(c).”
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 45× “He argues that when the interest is “between a fit parent, the father, and a private third party, Mother Goose Adoptions, both parties do not begin on equal footing.”
Jesus M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 53 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 13× “To justify severance pursuant to § 8 — 533(B)(7)(b), ADES must prove the child has been in a court-ordered, out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer; the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances which led to the out-of-home placement; and there is a…”
Michael J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 995 P.2d 682 (Ariz. 2000).
· cites it 20× “In Arizona, "[t]ermination of parental rights is *685 governed solely by A.R.S. § 8-533." In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No.”
Mario G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 257 P.3d 1162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 30× “To justify such termination, the juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evi *285 denee, the existence of at least one ground set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.”
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 29× “Additionally, Parents argue that the juvenile court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the termination petition because a termination action cannot be brought pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533 when there is an ongoing dependency action.”
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 971 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 19× “welfare agency, that the agency responsible for the care of the child has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services and that either of the following circumstances exists: (b) The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(1) — 7 cases
Michael J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 995 P.2d 682 (Ariz. 2000).
“In Arizona, "[t]ermination of parental rights is *685 governed solely by A.R.S. § 8-533." In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(10) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(3) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(4) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(8) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(8)(a) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(8)(c) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(A) — 32 cases
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“Additionally, Parents argue that the juvenile court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the termination petition because a termination action cannot be brought pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-533 when there is an ongoing dependency action.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(A)(1) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(A)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B) — 619 cases
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 971 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“welfare agency, that the agency responsible for the care of the child has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services and that either of the following circumstances exists: (b) The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period…”
Jesus M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 53 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“To justify severance pursuant to § 8 — 533(B)(7)(b), ADES must prove the child has been in a court-ordered, out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer; the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances which led to the out-of-home placement; and there is a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(1) — 201 cases
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 83 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“¶ 9 Additionally, we review de novo legal issues requiring the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 8-533. See Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.”
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“He argues that when the interest is “between a fit parent, the father, and a private third party, Mother Goose Adoptions, both parties do not begin on equal footing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(10) — 23 cases
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 83 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“¶ 9 Additionally, we review de novo legal issues requiring the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 8-533. See Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.”
Mario G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 257 P.3d 1162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“To justify such termination, the juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evi *285 denee, the existence of at least one ground set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.”
E.R. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 344 P.3d 842 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“to provide [a] child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” ¶ 14 Moreover, the juvenile court’s construction of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(11) — 30 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(11)(a) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(11)(b) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(11)(c) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(11)(d) — 4 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(1999) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(2) — 199 cases
E.R. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 344 P.3d 842 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“to provide [a] child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” ¶ 14 Moreover, the juvenile court’s construction of A.”
Mario G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 257 P.3d 1162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“To justify such termination, the juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evi *285 denee, the existence of at least one ground set forth in A.R.S. § 8-533. Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(3) — 362 cases
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 83 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“¶ 9 Additionally, we review de novo legal issues requiring the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 8-533. See Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.”
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 971 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“welfare agency, that the agency responsible for the care of the child has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services and that either of the following circumstances exists: (b) The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(4) — 136 cases
Jesus M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 53 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“To justify severance pursuant to § 8 — 533(B)(7)(b), ADES must prove the child has been in a court-ordered, out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer; the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances which led to the out-of-home placement; and there is a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(5) — 13 cases
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“He argues that when the interest is “between a fit parent, the father, and a private third party, Mother Goose Adoptions, both parties do not begin on equal footing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(6) — 20 cases
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“He argues that when the interest is “between a fit parent, the father, and a private third party, Mother Goose Adoptions, both parties do not begin on equal footing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(6)(a) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(6)(b) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(7) — 13 cases
Michael J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 995 P.2d 682 (Ariz. 2000).
“In Arizona, "[t]ermination of parental rights is *685 governed solely by A.R.S. § 8-533." In re Pima County Juvenile Severance Action No.”
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“He argues that when the interest is “between a fit parent, the father, and a private third party, Mother Goose Adoptions, both parties do not begin on equal footing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(7)(a) — 5 cases
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 83 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“¶ 9 Additionally, we review de novo legal issues requiring the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 8-533. See Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.”
Jesus M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 53 P.3d 203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“To justify severance pursuant to § 8 — 533(B)(7)(b), ADES must prove the child has been in a court-ordered, out-of-home placement for fifteen months or longer; the parent has been unable to remedy the circumstances which led to the out-of-home placement; and there is a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(7)(b) — 1 case
Mary Ellen C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 971 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“welfare agency, that the agency responsible for the care of the child has made a diligent effort to provide appropriate reunification services and that either of the following circumstances exists: (b) The child has been in an out-of-home placement for a cumulative total period…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8) — 138 cases
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D., 444 P.3d 258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶27 The first issue that must be reviewed under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8) is the “circumstance” causing out-of-home placement.”
Jordan C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 219 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“At the court’s direction, ADES filed a motion to terminate Michele’s parental rights to her two youngest children on grounds of disabling mental illness or chronic drug abuse, see § 8-533(B)(3), and fifteen-month, time-in-care, see § 8-533(B)(8)(c).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8)(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8)(a) — 155 cases
E.R. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 344 P.3d 842 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“to provide [a] child with supervision, food, clothing, shelter or medical care if that inability or unwillingness causes unreasonable risk of harm to the child’s health or welfare.” ¶ 14 Moreover, the juvenile court’s construction of A.”
Mary Lou C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 83 P.3d 43 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“¶ 9 Additionally, we review de novo legal issues requiring the interpretation and application of A.R.S. § 8-533. See Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8)(b) — 75 cases
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D., 444 P.3d 258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶27 The first issue that must be reviewed under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8) is the “circumstance” causing out-of-home placement.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8)(c) — 269 cases
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D., 444 P.3d 258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶27 The first issue that must be reviewed under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8) is the “circumstance” causing out-of-home placement.”
Jordan C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 219 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“At the court’s direction, ADES filed a motion to terminate Michele’s parental rights to her two youngest children on grounds of disabling mental illness or chronic drug abuse, see § 8-533(B)(3), and fifteen-month, time-in-care, see § 8-533(B)(8)(c).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(8)(e) — 4 cases
Jordan C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 219 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“At the court’s direction, ADES filed a motion to terminate Michele’s parental rights to her two youngest children on grounds of disabling mental illness or chronic drug abuse, see § 8-533(B)(3), and fifteen-month, time-in-care, see § 8-533(B)(8)(c).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(9) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(l) — 24 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(ll) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(B)(ll)(d) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(BX4) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(C) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(D) — 27 cases
Jordan C. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 219 P.3d 296 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“At the court’s direction, ADES filed a motion to terminate Michele’s parental rights to her two youngest children on grounds of disabling mental illness or chronic drug abuse, see § 8-533(B)(3), and fifteen-month, time-in-care, see § 8-533(B)(8)(c).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(E) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(F) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-533(a) — 1 case
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.