Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-863 (2026)

Hearing to terminate parental rights; notice; grounds

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. At least ten days before the initial hearing on the termination of parental rights pursuant to this article, the party who is responsible for filing a motion pursuant to section 8-862, subsection D shall serve the motion on all parties as prescribed in rule 5(c) of the Arizona rules of civil procedure, including any person who has filed a petition to adopt or who has physical custody pursuant to a court order in a foster-adoptive placement.

B. The court may terminate the parental rights of a parent if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence one or more of the grounds prescribed in section 8-533.

C. 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 of the petition by the failure to appear. The court may terminate the parent-child relationship as to a parent who does not appear based on the record and evidence presented as provided in rules prescribed by the supreme court.

D. Sections 8-538 and 8-539 apply to orders of termination issued pursuant to this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 410 P.3d 419 (Ariz. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 410 P.3d 419 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 43× “A.R.S. § 8-863(C) ; Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. ("Rule") 66(D)(2).”

Trisha A. v. Dep't of Child Saf./l.A./l.A., 446 P.3d 380 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 10× “Department of Child Safety, we observed that, upon acceleration, the termination hearing becomes a severance hearing under A.R.S. § 8-863. 243 Ariz. at 58 ¶ 22 (“When the juvenile court ‘go[es] forward’ [under Rule 64(C)] with the adjudication termination hearing in the parent’s…”

Mara M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 38 P.3d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 22× “A.R.S. § 8-863 (Supp.2000). Although he still had not been in contact with Mara, her former counsel appeared and asked to be reappointed.”

Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 393 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “Although we have recognized that Article 5 of Title 8 is not applicable to the parental termination proceeding initiated by motion "except to the extent prescribed in § 8-863,” A.R.S. § 8-532(C); Adrian E., 215 Ariz.”

Marianne N. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 381 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “§ 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…”

Manuel M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 181 P.3d 1126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Section 8-863 and Rule 66(D)(2), which pertain to termination adjudication hearings, are applicable to these proceedings even though the July 24, 2007, hearing that Manuel failed to attend had originally been scheduled as a pretrial conference.”

Adrian E. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 158 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Rule 64(C) plainly requires a parent to be notified at the time he or she is served with a termination motion that the failure to appear for a status conference could result in termination of parental rights, and Adrian was properly served, through counsel, with such notice in…”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Reinstein, 150 P.3d 782 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “2003) and A.R.S. § 8-863 (Supp.2003). The first versions were to remain in effect through December 31, 2006.”

Alyssa W. v. Justin G., J.G., 433 P.3d 3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶7 To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must first find by clear and convincing evidence, A.R.S. § 8-863(B), the existence of at least one statutory ground for termination pursuant to A.”

Bobby G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 200 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Section 8-532 states: “This article [article 2] does not apply to termination proceedings conducted pursuant to chapter 10, article 4 of this title, except to the extent prescribed in § 8-863.” It does not state that a party is prohibited from filing a petition pursuant to…”

Jb v. Fla. Dept. of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2000). “See Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 8-863(A) (West 1998) (requiring service at least 10 days before initial hearing on petition to terminate parental rights); Cal.”

Valerie M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 195 P.3d 192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Section 8-863(B) applies to motions for termination of parental rights that are filed when ordered by a court at a permanency hearing conducted after a dependency disposition.”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-863(0) — 1 case

Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 393 P.3d 930 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Although we have recognized that Article 5 of Title 8 is not applicable to the parental termination proceeding initiated by motion "except to the extent prescribed in § 8-863,” A.R.S. § 8-532(C); Adrian E., 215 Ariz.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-863(A) — 6 cases

Adrian E. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 158 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “Rule 64(C) plainly requires a parent to be notified at the time he or she is served with a termination motion that the failure to appear for a status conference could result in termination of parental rights, and Adrian was properly served, through counsel, with such notice in…”

Mara M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 38 P.3d 41 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 8-863 (Supp.2000). Although he still had not been in contact with Mara, her former counsel appeared and asked to be reappointed.”

JB v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 734 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Marianne N. v. dcs/o.N./i.T./a.G. (Ariz. 2017).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-863(A)(3)(1997) — 1 case

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-863(B) — 14 cases

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Reinstein, 150 P.3d 782 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “2003) and A.R.S. § 8-863 (Supp.2003). The first versions were to remain in effect through December 31, 2006.”

Alyssa W. v. Justin G., J.G., 433 P.3d 3 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “¶7 To terminate parental rights, a juvenile court must first find by clear and convincing evidence, A.R.S. § 8-863(B), the existence of at least one statutory ground for termination pursuant to A.”

Chastity S. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-863(C) — 30 cases

Brenda D. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 410 P.3d 419 (Ariz. 2018). “A.R.S. § 8-863(C) ; Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. ("Rule") 66(D)(2).”

Trisha A. v. Dep't of Child Saf./l.A./l.A., 446 P.3d 380 (Ariz. 2019). “Department of Child Safety, we observed that, upon acceleration, the termination hearing becomes a severance hearing under A.R.S. § 8-863. 243 Ariz. at 58 ¶ 22 (“When the juvenile court ‘go[es] forward’ [under Rule 64(C)] with the adjudication termination hearing in the parent’s…”

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…”

Manuel M. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 181 P.3d 1126 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “Section 8-863 and Rule 66(D)(2), which pertain to termination adjudication hearings, are applicable to these proceedings even though the July 24, 2007, hearing that Manuel failed to attend had originally been scheduled as a pretrial conference.”

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.