A. Before a contested dependency case proceeds to adjudication, the court shall hold a settlement conference or pretrial conference or shall order mediation. All of the parties in the contested action shall participate in the conference or mediation.
B. The court shall take into consideration as a mitigating factor the availability of reasonable services to the parent or guardian to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child and the effort of the parent or guardian to obtain and participate in these services.
C. If, at the dependency adjudication hearing, the court:
1. Finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations contained in the petition are true, the court shall:
(a) Make the following findings as to each parent:
(i) That the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person before the court.
(ii) The factual basis for the dependency.
(iii) That the child is dependent.
(b) Conduct a disposition hearing.
2. Does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the allegations contained in the petition are true, the court shall dismiss the petition.
D. The court may adjudicate a child dependent as to one parent or guardian and proceed with a disposition, review or permanency hearing or any other hearing as to that particular parent or guardian notwithstanding another parent's or guardian’s request to contest the allegations in the petition or that another parent or guardian has not been served.
E. The court may hold the disposition hearing on the same date as the dependency adjudication hearing or at a later date that is not more than thirty days after the date of the dependency adjudication hearing.
F. If a parent does not appear at the pretrial conference, settlement conference or dependency adjudication hearing, the court, after determining that the parent has been instructed as provided in section 8-826, may find that the parent has waived the parent's legal rights and is deemed to have admitted the allegations of the petition by the failure to appear. The court may make a determination of dependency and disposition based on the record and evidence presented as provided in rules prescribed by the supreme court.
G. Evidence considered by the court in making a decision pursuant to this section shall also include any substantiated allegations of abuse or neglect committed in another jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Shella H. v. Department of Child Safety (2016)
arizctapp · cites it 4×
“DCS argues, however, the court’s order adjudicating the Children dependent is supported by reasonable evidence establishing Mother remained unable or unwilling to parent at the time of the adjudication hearing as a result of domestic violence, and therefore, we should affirm.”
Louis C. v. Department of Child Safety (2015)
arizctapp · cites it 6×
“Although Louis cites § 8-844 elsewhere in his opening brief, he omits any reference to § 8-844(C) in his arguments on appeal.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state (2019)
ariz · cites it 2×
“If the state cannot prove a dispositive fact under the preponderance standard, it is unlikely to be able to do so, absent new or additional evidence, in a subsequent criminal proceeding under the more-demanding standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security (2005)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“ffective parental care and control and who has no parent or guardian, or one who has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control;] (ii) Destitute or who is not provided with the necessities of life, including adequate food, clothing,…”
Oscar F. v. Dcs, E.F., M.f, C. F. G.F. and L.F. (2014)
arizctapp · cites it 4×
“We conclude this circumstance is encompassed by the court’s authority, pursuant to AR.S. § 8-844(D), to adjudicate children dependent as to one parent, notwithstanding unresolved and contested dependency allegations with respect to the other.”
B.K. v. Thomas Betlach (2019)
ca9
“ARS § 8-844. If the child is dependent, the court will typically place the child in DCS’s legal custody, triggering DCS’s legal obligations to the child.”
Tinsley v. McKay (2015)
azd · cites it 2×
“See A.R.S. § 8-844. If the child is determined dependent, the juvenile court “may enter orders awarding a dependent child,” subject to the supervision of DCS, to the care of the parents or to another member of the child’s family, or to an institution, association, agency (such…”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell (2017)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“Both parents testified, and records and reports, including medical records, were admitted. In its under-advisement ruling, the juvenile court not only made clear that DCS had failed to sustain its burden of proving the allegations of the dependency petition by a preponderance of…”
Reyna A. v. Dcs, E.C. (2019)
arizctapp · cites it 10×
“In that ruling, the court explained, “[n]either the rule (Rule 55) nor the statute (A.R.S. § 8-844) require[] the court to ‘set forth in writing’ the findings of fact or the factual basis (for the court’s ruling).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(A) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(B) — 7 cases
Shella H. v. Department of Child Safety (2016)
arizctapp
“DCS argues, however, the court’s order adjudicating the Children dependent is supported by reasonable evidence establishing Mother remained unable or unwilling to parent at the time of the adjudication hearing as a result of domestic violence, and therefore, we should affirm.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C) — 19 cases
Crosby-Garbotz v. Hon. fell/state (2019)
ariz
“If the state cannot prove a dispositive fact under the preponderance standard, it is unlikely to be able to do so, absent new or additional evidence, in a subsequent criminal proceeding under the more-demanding standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell (2017)
arizctapp
“Both parents testified, and records and reports, including medical records, were admitted. In its under-advisement ruling, the juvenile court not only made clear that DCS had failed to sustain its burden of proving the allegations of the dependency petition by a preponderance of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(1) — 35 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(1)(a) — 4 cases
Reyna A. v. Dcs, E.C. (2019)
arizctapp
“In that ruling, the court explained, “[n]either the rule (Rule 55) nor the statute (A.R.S. § 8-844) require[] the court to ‘set forth in writing’ the findings of fact or the factual basis (for the court’s ruling).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(1)(a)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(1)(a)(ii) — 13 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(1)(a)(iii) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(1)(b) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(2) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(l) — 1 case
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security (2005)
arizctapp
“ffective parental care and control and who has no parent or guardian, or one who has no parent or guardian willing to exercise or capable of exercising such care and control;] (ii) Destitute or who is not provided with the necessities of life, including adequate food, clothing,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(C)(l)(a)(ii) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(D) — 1 case
Oscar F. v. Dcs, E.F., M.f, C. F. G.F. and L.F. (2014)
arizctapp
“We conclude this circumstance is encompassed by the court’s authority, pursuant to AR.S. § 8-844(D), to adjudicate children dependent as to one parent, notwithstanding unresolved and contested dependency allegations with respect to the other.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(E) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-844(F) — 4 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.