A. After receiving and considering the evidence on the proper disposition of the case, the court may place a dependent child in the care of the child's parents, subject to the supervision of the department. If placement with the child's parents is contrary to the child's welfare, the court may place the child as follows in accordance with the child's best interests:
1. With a grandparent or another member of the child's extended family, including a person who has a significant relationship with the child.
2. In a licensed foster home.
3. In an appropriate public or private agency licensed to care for children.
4. In a suitable school.
5. In the independent living program established pursuant to section 8-521.
6. With any adult as a permanent guardian pursuant to article 12 of this chapter.
B. In reviewing the status of the child and in determining its order of disposition, the court shall consider the health and safety of the child as a paramount concern and the following criteria:
1. The goals of the placement and the appropriateness of the case plan.
2. The services that have been offered to reunite the family.
3. If returning the child home is not likely, the efforts that have been or should be made to evaluate or plan for other permanent placement plans.
4. The efforts that have been made or should be made to place the child with the child's siblings or to provide frequent visitation or contact when placement with siblings has not been possible.
C. The court shall review the permanent plan that has been established for the child. In reviewing the status of the child, the court, insofar as possible, shall seek to reunite the family. If the court does not order reunification of the family, the court shall order a plan of adoption or another permanent plan that is in the child's best interest and that takes into consideration the placement of the child with siblings or that provides for frequent visitation or contact between siblings unless the court determines that either the placement with the siblings or the visitation or contact would be contrary to the child's or a sibling's safety or well-being. If the court finds that an aggravating circumstance described in section 8-846, subsection D, paragraph 1 exists, the department shall file a motion for termination of parental rights within ten business days after the date of the court order, unless termination of parental rights is not in the best interests of the child.
D. Notwithstanding subsection C of this section, reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption may be made concurrently with reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case:
DIANA H. v. Rubin
DIANA H. v. Rubin (2007)
arizctapp · cites it 8×
“But the Department overlooks that the pertinent statutes also embody a legislative judgment that a child's interests are best served by the presumptive goal of reunifying parent and child.”
Donald W. v. Dcs, M.D. (2019)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“” A.R.S. § 8-845(A). A dependent child is defined by A.”
Tinsley v. McKay (2015)
azd · cites it 10×
“” A.R.S. § 8-845(A). In deciding where to place the child, the juvenile' court must consider the goals of the placement and appropriateness of the ease plan.”
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. (2019)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“See A.R.S. §§ 8-845(B) (listing criteria for reviewing dependent status), -862(A), (D)(1)-(2) (outlining the court’s duty to commence termination proceedings following a permanency hearing if “termination is clearly in the best interests of the child”); see also J’America B.”
Allen v. Chon-Lopez (2007)
arizctapp · cites it 4×
“" A.R.S. § 8-845(A)(2). ADES does not dispute that Allen falls within this category.”
Department of Child Safety v. Beene (2014)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“§ 8-821(A) (temporary custody authorized “to protect the child”); AR.S. § 8-845(B) (“In reviewing the status of the child and in determining” proper case plan, “the court shall consider the health and safety of the child as a paramount concern.”
Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security (2008)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“A.R.S. § 8-845(A)(2) (2007) (providing that a court may award a dependent child to a grandparent or other “member of the child’s extended family” when it is “in the child’s best interests”); Willie G.”
Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades (2014)
ariz · cites it 2×
“With respect to disposition hearings in general, A.R.S. § 8-845 requires the court to “consider the health and safety of the children as its paramount concern.”
Lindsey M. v. Rizona Department of Economic Security (2006)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“1 ¶ 2 At the dependency adjudication hearing held on March 14, the juvenile court scheduled for April 11 the disposition hearing contemplated by A.R.S. § 8-845 and Rule 56, Ariz. R.P. Juv.”
Allegra G. v. Dcs (2022)
arizctapp · cites it 6×
“¶9 We next address Mother’s contention that A.R.S. § 8-845 “is unconstitutional (‘breathtakingly broad’) as applied” because her parental rights were not prioritized.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-845(A) — 4 cases
Tinsley v. McKay (2015)
azd
“” A.R.S. § 8-845(A). In deciding where to place the child, the juvenile' court must consider the goals of the placement and appropriateness of the ease plan.”
Allegra G. v. Dcs (2022)
arizctapp
“¶9 We next address Mother’s contention that A.R.S. § 8-845 “is unconstitutional (‘breathtakingly broad’) as applied” because her parental rights were not prioritized.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-845(A)(2) — 5 cases
Allen v. Chon-Lopez (2007)
arizctapp
“" A.R.S. § 8-845(A)(2). ADES does not dispute that Allen falls within this category.”
Antonio P. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security (2008)
arizctapp
“A.R.S. § 8-845(A)(2) (2007) (providing that a court may award a dependent child to a grandparent or other “member of the child’s extended family” when it is “in the child’s best interests”); Willie G.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-845(A)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-845(B) — 9 cases
DIANA H. v. Rubin (2007)
arizctapp
“But the Department overlooks that the pertinent statutes also embody a legislative judgment that a child's interests are best served by the presumptive goal of reunifying parent and child.”
Lawrence T. v. Dcs, M.T. (2019)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. §§ 8-845(B) (listing criteria for reviewing dependent status), -862(A), (D)(1)-(2) (outlining the court’s duty to commence termination proceedings following a permanency hearing if “termination is clearly in the best interests of the child”); see also J’America B.”
Department of Child Safety v. Beene (2014)
arizctapp
“§ 8-821(A) (temporary custody authorized “to protect the child”); AR.S. § 8-845(B) (“In reviewing the status of the child and in determining” proper case plan, “the court shall consider the health and safety of the child as a paramount concern.”
Tinsley v. McKay (2015)
azd
“” A.R.S. § 8-845(A). In deciding where to place the child, the juvenile' court must consider the goals of the placement and appropriateness of the ease plan.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-845(C) — 3 cases
Tinsley v. McKay (2015)
azd
“” A.R.S. § 8-845(A). In deciding where to place the child, the juvenile' court must consider the goals of the placement and appropriateness of the ease plan.”
DIANA H. v. Rubin (2007)
arizctapp
“But the Department overlooks that the pertinent statutes also embody a legislative judgment that a child's interests are best served by the presumptive goal of reunifying parent and child.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-845(D) — 2 cases
Allegra G. v. Dcs (2022)
arizctapp
“¶9 We next address Mother’s contention that A.R.S. § 8-845 “is unconstitutional (‘breathtakingly broad’) as applied” because her parental rights were not prioritized.”
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.