A. The court shall hold a permanency hearing to determine the future permanent legal status of the child:
1. Within thirty days after the disposition hearing if the court does not order reunification services.
2. Within six months after a child who is under three years of age is removed from the child's home. The court shall not continue that permanency hearing beyond six months after the child who is under three years of age is removed from the child's home unless the party who is seeking the continuance shows that the determination prescribed in section 8-829, subsection A, paragraph 6 has been made or will be made within the time prescribed in that paragraph.
3. In all other cases, within twelve months after the child is removed from the child's home. The court shall not continue the permanency hearing beyond twelve months after the child is removed from the child's home unless the party who is seeking the continuance shows that the determination prescribed in section 8-829, subsection A, paragraph 5 has been made or will be made within the time prescribed in that paragraph.
B. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine:
1. Whether termination of parental rights, adoption, permanent guardianship pursuant to section 8-872 or some other permanent legal status is the most appropriate plan for the child and shall order the plan to be accomplished within a specified period of time.
2. Whether reasonable efforts have been made to finalize the permanency plan in effect.
3. What efforts have been made in the permanency plan to place the child with the child's siblings or to provide frequent visitation or contact, unless the court had already determined that placement with all or any siblings or visitation or contact is not possible or would be contrary to the child's or a sibling's safety or well-being.
C. If the court determines that the child should remain in out-of-home placement longer than eighteen months from the date of the permanency order, the court shall conduct a review of the order at least once each year. After reviewing the order, the court may reaffirm the order or direct other disposition of the child.
D. If the court determines that the termination of parental rights is clearly in the best interests of the child, the court shall:
1. Order the department or the child's attorney or guardian ad litem to file within ten days after the permanency hearing a motion alleging one or more of the grounds prescribed in section 8-533 for termination of parental rights. The party who files the motion has the burden of presenting evidence at the termination hearing to prove the allegations in the motion.
2. Set a date for an initial hearing on the motion for termination of parental rights within thirty days after the permanency hearing. If the termination is contested at the initial hearing, the court shall set a date for the trial on termination of parental rights within ninety days after the permanency hearing.
E. The department shall make reasonable efforts to place the child in a timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the child.
F. If the court determines that permanent guardianship is clearly in the best interests of the child, the court shall:
1. Order the department or the child's attorney or guardian ad litem to file within ten days after the permanency hearing a motion alleging the grounds prescribed in section 8-871 for permanent guardianship. The party who files the motion has the burden of presenting evidence at the hearing to prove the allegations in the motion.
2. Set a date for an initial hearing on the motion for permanent guardianship within thirty days after the permanency hearing. If the permanent guardianship is contested at the initial hearing, the court shall set a date for the trial on the permanent guardianship within ninety days after the permanency hearing.
G. Evidence considered by the court in making a decision pursuant to this section also shall include any substantiated allegations of abuse or neglect committed in another jurisdiction.
H. If the court determines that termination of parental rights or permanent guardianship is clearly in the best interest of the child and the child has been placed in a prospective permanent placement, unless the action is required by federal law, state law or regulation, any action that is inconsistent with the case plan of severance and adoption, including removal of the child from that placement, may occur only by court order or if the prospective permanent placement requests the child's removal. If a motion to change the case plan or for removal of a child is filed, a copy of the motion must be provided to the prospective permanent placement at least fifteen days before a hearing on the motion. If the prospective permanent placement does not appear at a hearing on a motion for removal, the court may not take any action on the motion unless the court finds that good faith efforts were made to provide a copy of the motion to the prospective permanent placement. The prospective permanent placement has the right to be heard in the proceeding. This right does not require that the prospective permanent placement be made a party to the proceeding solely on the basis of that right. This subsection does not apply to any removal pursuant to section 8-456 or 8-821. If the child is an Indian child as defined pursuant to the Indian child welfare act (25 United States Code section 1903), the court and the parties must comply with all applicable requirements of that act. For the purposes of this subsection, a prospective permanent placement includes:
1. A grandparent or another member of the child's extended family including a person who has a significant relationship with the child.
2. A person or persons with an expressed interest in being the permanent placement for the child in a certified adoptive home where the child resides, a home that is a permanent placement for a sibling of the child or a licensed family foster home where the child resides.
I. This section does not prevent the department from presenting for the court's consideration a grandparent or another member of the child’s extended family including a person who has a significant relationship with the child and who has not been identified as a prospective permanent placement for the child before the child's placement with a prospective permanent placement.
Notes of Decisions
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 20× “A.R.S. § 8-862 ¶ 13 Shortly after ADES filed its termination petition, Parents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing ADES was precluded from filing a petition for termination under A.”
Lisa K. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 281 P.3d 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 27× “The sole claim Lisa raises on appeal is that A.R.S. § 8-862 is unconstitutional and resulted in a violation of her due process rights, requiring us to vacate the termination order.”
Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 7× “¶ 6 Bobby moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that, because the permanency planning hearing had begun, a petition for termination under § 8-533 was precluded, and the only method of proceeding to terminate his parental rights was through a motion filed pursuant to court order…”
Mara M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 38 P.3d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 9× “¶ 17 A year later, A.R.S. § 8-862 and § 8-863 were rewritten to be in substance as they are presently.”
Rita J. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 1 P.3d 155 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “The mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order of December 30, 1999, entered after a permanency hearing, held pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-862, in which the court found that returning the children to the mother would create a substantial risk of harm to their physical, mental, and…”
Jennifer G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 123 P.3d 186 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “¶ 11 In May 2004, the juvenile court held a permanency hearing pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-862 to determine the children’s future status.”
Allen v. Chon-Lopez, 153 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “" A.R.S. § 8-862(A)(2); (B)(1). It is difficult to see the logic in allowing Allen to intervene and delay the proceedings for the purpose of seeking custody of a child recently removed from her care by Child Protective Services, which required probable cause to show T.”
Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades, 328 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2014).
· cites it 4× “AR.S. § 8-862. At that hearing, the court determines the future permanent legal status of the child based on his or her clear best interests.”
Dep't of Child Saf. v. Beene, 332 P.3d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “That appeal also rejected Father’s claim that he was denied due process when the superior court precluded him from calling AB. as a witness in the dependency trial.”
Marianne N. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 381 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “§ 8-863(C) states: If a parent does not appear at the hearing, the court, after determining that the parent has been served as provided in subsection A of this section, may find that the parent has waived the parent’s legal rights and is deemed to have admitted the allegations…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(A): 4 cases
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“A.R.S. § 8-862 ¶ 13 Shortly after ADES filed its termination petition, Parents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing ADES was precluded from filing a petition for termination under A.”
Lisa K. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 281 P.3d 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“The sole claim Lisa raises on appeal is that A.R.S. § 8-862 is unconstitutional and resulted in a violation of her due process rights, requiring us to vacate the termination order.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(A)(1): 1 case
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(A)(2): 4 cases
Allen v. Chon-Lopez, 153 P.3d 382 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“" A.R.S. § 8-862(A)(2); (B)(1). It is difficult to see the logic in allowing Allen to intervene and delay the proceedings for the purpose of seeking custody of a child recently removed from her care by Child Protective Services, which required probable cause to show T.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(A)(l): 1 case
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(B): 1 case
Dep't of Child Saf. v. Beene, 332 P.3d 47 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“That appeal also rejected Father’s claim that he was denied due process when the superior court precluded him from calling AB. as a witness in the dependency trial.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(B)(1): 2 cases
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(B)(l): 1 case
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“A.R.S. § 8-862 ¶ 13 Shortly after ADES filed its termination petition, Parents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing ADES was precluded from filing a petition for termination under A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(D): 7 cases
Marianne N. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 381 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“§ 8-863(C) states: If a parent does not appear at the hearing, the court, after determining that the parent has been served as provided in subsection A of this section, may find that the parent has waived the parent’s legal rights and is deemed to have admitted the allegations…”
Alexander M. v. Hon. abrams/ades, 328 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. 2014).
“AR.S. § 8-862. At that hearing, the court determines the future permanent legal status of the child based on his or her clear best interests.”
Lisa K. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 281 P.3d 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“The sole claim Lisa raises on appeal is that A.R.S. § 8-862 is unconstitutional and resulted in a violation of her due process rights, requiring us to vacate the termination order.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(D)(1): 5 cases
Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“¶ 6 Bobby moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that, because the permanency planning hearing had begun, a petition for termination under § 8-533 was precluded, and the only method of proceeding to terminate his parental rights was through a motion filed pursuant to court order…”
Lisa K. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 281 P.3d 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“The sole claim Lisa raises on appeal is that A.R.S. § 8-862 is unconstitutional and resulted in a violation of her due process rights, requiring us to vacate the termination order.”
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“A.R.S. § 8-862 ¶ 13 Shortly after ADES filed its termination petition, Parents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing ADES was precluded from filing a petition for termination under A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(D)(1997): 1 case
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(D)(2): 3 cases
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(D)(l): 4 cases
Kimu P. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 178 P.3d 511 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“A.R.S. § 8-862 ¶ 13 Shortly after ADES filed its termination petition, Parents moved to dismiss the petition, arguing ADES was precluded from filing a petition for termination under A.”
Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“¶ 6 Bobby moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that, because the permanency planning hearing had begun, a petition for termination under § 8-533 was precluded, and the only method of proceeding to terminate his parental rights was through a motion filed pursuant to court order…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(E): 2 cases
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-862(H): 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.