Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-842 (2026)

Initial dependency hearing; deadlines

✓ current as of May 2026

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

8-842. Initial dependency hearing; deadlines

A. Except as provided in section 8-826, the court shall set the initial dependency hearing within twenty-one days after the petition is filed. If service by publication is required, the court may set an initial dependency hearing within a time period to allow for publication pursuant to the rules of procedure for the juvenile court.

B. At the initial dependency hearing, the court shall:

1. Determine if the parent or guardian is providing the court and the department with the names, the type of relationship and all available information necessary to locate persons who are related to the child or who have a significant relationship with the child.

2. Determine that the department is conducting a due diligence search pursuant to section 8-514.07 and attempting to identify and assess placement of the child with a grandparent or another member of the child's extended family including a person who has a significant relationship with the child.

3. If the child has siblings, determine that the department is attempting to identify and assess placement of the child with the child's siblings if this is possible and is in the child's best interests.

C. Unless the court has ordered in-home intervention, the dependency adjudication hearing shall be completed within ninety days after service of the dependency petition.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2023 · leading case: Joshua J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 286 P.3d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Joshua J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 286 P.3d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 27× “A bill was introduced in the Legislature to expedite permanency and finality, and an amendment created A.R.S. § 8-842, requiring the completion of the dependency hearing within 90 days.”

Mara M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 38 P.3d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 8-842 (Supp.1999). From jail, Mara appeared by telephone at the pre-hearing conference, during which counsel was appointed for Mara and she waived service of process.”

Kimberly D.-D. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 320 P.3d 823 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “She argues on appeal that the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss based on the time limits in A.R.S. § 8-842(C) when the dependency adjudication hearing was not completed until 142 days after service of the dependency petition.”

Dep't of Child Saf. v. Stocking-Tate, 446 P.3d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “• Once a dependency petition is filed, "the court shall set the [IDH] within twenty-one days," A.R.S. § 8-842(A), at which time it is tasked with entering findings and orders concerning the placement and custody of the child, Ariz.”

Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell, 418 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Given the policy considerations discussed at length above, the urgency of dependency proceedings and, most importantly, the need to protect children from harm, we conclude a bright-line rule against applying collateral estoppel in this context best serves the litigants, their…”

Jessyca P., Bradon P. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Decision of the Court ¶13 The delay is the basis of Mother's first argument, which is that the dependency should be dismissed because the adjudication was not made within 120 days, pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-842(C) (2015). That provision states: The court may continue the initial…”

Morgan v. Ali (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “8 A.R.S. § 8-842(B)(2) (2014) provides that, during dependency proceedings, the juvenile court must “[d]etermine that [DCS] is attempting 4 MORGAN v.”

Rick R. v. Dcs, H.R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 8-842(C) (2019). But this time limit is not mandatory, and "a violation .”

Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “• Once a dependency petition is filed, “the court shall set the [IDH] within twenty-one days,” A.R.S. § 8-842(A), at which time it is tasked with entering findings and orders concerning the placement and custody of the child, Ariz.”

Allegra G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “, we held that though § 8-842 and Rule 55(B) provide that an initial dependency hearing “shall” be held within a prescribed period after the petition is filed, non-compliance with that deadline is not fatal to the proceedings.”

In Re Dependency as to G.R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 8-842(C); see also Ariz. R.P. Juv.”

Kristina T. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “") section 8-842(C), which states that an out-of-home "dependency adjudication hearing shall be completed within ninety days after service of the dependency petition.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-842(A) — 2 cases

Dep't of Child Saf. v. Stocking-Tate, 446 P.3d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “• Once a dependency petition is filed, "the court shall set the [IDH] within twenty-one days," A.R.S. § 8-842(A), at which time it is tasked with entering findings and orders concerning the placement and custody of the child, Ariz.”

Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “• Once a dependency petition is filed, “the court shall set the [IDH] within twenty-one days,” A.R.S. § 8-842(A), at which time it is tasked with entering findings and orders concerning the placement and custody of the child, Ariz.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-842(B)(2) — 1 case

Morgan v. Ali (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “8 A.R.S. § 8-842(B)(2) (2014) provides that, during dependency proceedings, the juvenile court must “[d]etermine that [DCS] is attempting 4 MORGAN v.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-842(C) — 7 cases

Joshua J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 286 P.3d 166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “A bill was introduced in the Legislature to expedite permanency and finality, and an amendment created A.R.S. § 8-842, requiring the completion of the dependency hearing within 90 days.”

Kimberly D.-D. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 320 P.3d 823 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “She argues on appeal that the court erred in denying her motion to dismiss based on the time limits in A.R.S. § 8-842(C) when the dependency adjudication hearing was not completed until 142 days after service of the dependency petition.”

Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell, 418 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Given the policy considerations discussed at length above, the urgency of dependency proceedings and, most importantly, the need to protect children from harm, we conclude a bright-line rule against applying collateral estoppel in this context best serves the litigants, their…”

Jessyca P., Bradon P. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Decision of the Court ¶13 The delay is the basis of Mother's first argument, which is that the dependency should be dismissed because the adjudication was not made within 120 days, pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-842(C) (2015). That provision states: The court may continue the initial…”

Rick R. v. Dcs, H.R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “See A.R.S. § 8-842(C) (2019). But this time limit is not mandatory, and "a violation .”

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.