Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-861 (2026)

Return of child

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After the temporary custody hearing, on request of a parent or guardian the court shall order that the child be returned to the child's parent or guardian if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the return of the child would not create a substantial risk of harm to the child's physical, mental or emotional health or safety.  The court shall consider the failure of the parent or guardian to comply with the terms of the case plan as evidence that return of the child would create a substantial risk of harm to the child.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades, 328 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades, 328 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2014). · cites it 14× “The Children objected, arguing that before they could be reunified with their parents, AR.S. § 8-861 and Rule 59 of the Arizona Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court required the court to conduct a placement hearing to determine whether reunification would create a…”
Rita J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 P.3d 155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “§§ 8-861, 8-862, and related statutes to comply with the requirement in ASFA that states enact procedures for securing permanent placement of children in foster care within twelve months of their temporary placement. 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
Adrian E. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 158 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Instead, the termination proceedings were initiated by the Department’s filing a termination motion in an ongoing dependency proceeding pursuant to article 4 of chapter 10 (A.R.S. §§ 8-861 through 8-864). And § 8-532(C) specifically states, with an exception not relevant here,…”
Veronica T. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 126 P.3d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 9× “¶ 17 Also in the 2001 amendment, the legislature deleted language found in the previous version of A.R.S. § 8-861 that required the court to hold an “initial permanency hearing” within twelve months of removal of the child.”
Mara M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 38 P.3d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “At the September 18 combined review and initial permanency hearing, A.R.S. § 8-861 (1999), Mara’s counsel and GAL appeared without Mara.”
Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Bobby contends the legislature intended such a prohibition when it enacted provisions for motions to terminate parental rights under the circumstances described in § 8-862(D)(1).”
Dep't of Child Saf. v. Stocking-Tate, 446 P.3d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “59(E)(1) ; see also A.R.S. § 8-861. This procedure was available for disposition of Father's motion, and the court erred in not following these procedures.”
Dcs, S.P. v. Juan P. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “¶10 In Father’s closing argument filings, he asserted that because this case is “not typical” and neither Rule 59 nor A.R.S. § 8-861 explicitly establishes which party bears the burden of proof, it is DCS’s burden to show that returning S.”
Dcs, S.P. v. Juan P., 427 P.3d 785 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “¶9 In Father’s closing argument filings on the motion, he asserted that because this case is “not typical” and neither Rule 59 nor A.R.S. § 8-861 explicitly establishes which party bears the burden of proof, it is DCS’s burden to show that returning S.”
Brionna J. v. Dcs, A.V. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “Such a result would be contrary to the primary purpose of A.R.S. § 8-861 and Rule 59, which is to “expedit[e] the process of finding permanent placement for children.”
Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Opinion of the Court see also A.R.S. § 8-861. This procedure was available for disposition of Father’s motion, and the court erred in not following these procedures.”
Marianne N. v. dcs/o.N./i.T./a.G. (Ariz. 2017). “…5; §§ 8-531 to 8-544] does not apply to termination proceedings conducted pursuant to article 11 of this chapter [§§ 8-861 to 8-864] . . . .” So directed, we demonstrate the greatest fidelity to legislative intent by applying 16 MARIANNE N. V. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY,…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-861(A)(2001) — 1 case
Veronica T. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 126 P.3d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 17 Also in the 2001 amendment, the legislature deleted language found in the previous version of A.R.S. § 8-861 that required the court to hold an “initial permanency hearing” within twelve months of removal of the child.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-861(B) — 1 case
Rita J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 P.3d 155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “§§ 8-861, 8-862, and related statutes to comply with the requirement in ASFA that states enact procedures for securing permanent placement of children in foster care within twelve months of their temporary placement. 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-861(C) — 1 case
Rita J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 P.3d 155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “§§ 8-861, 8-862, and related statutes to comply with the requirement in ASFA that states enact procedures for securing permanent placement of children in foster care within twelve months of their temporary placement. 1997 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-861(D) — 1 case
Veronica T. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 126 P.3d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 17 Also in the 2001 amendment, the legislature deleted language found in the previous version of A.R.S. § 8-861 that required the court to hold an “initial permanency hearing” within twelve months of removal of the child.”
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.