§ 7.3.6.5 Juvenile and Custody Matters.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 7.3.6.5 Juvenile and Custody Matters. Special actions arising out of child custody and juvenile proceedings often involve issues that must be addressed with particular speed; orders that are not appealable or for which there is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by appeal; and matters of statewide importance.

A variety of orders entered and issues raised in juvenile proceedings may be appropriate for appellate review by special action. In Diana H. v. Rubin, 217 Ariz. 131, 132, ¶ 1, 171 P.3d 200, 201 (App. 2007), a mother, whose 9-month-old child had been adjudicated dependent, objected to the state’s request for authority to immunize the child. The court of appeals found the mother had no adequate remedy by appeal and the issue was of statewide importance. Id. The court concluded the Arizona Department of Economic Security had failed to articulate a sufficiently compelling interest in immunizing the child to override the parental rights the parent retained notwithstanding the fact the child had been adjudicated dependent. Id. In Andrew G. v. Peasley-Fimbres, 216 Ariz. 204, 205, ¶ 2, 165 P.3d 182, 183 (App. 2007), the court of appeals addressed the question whether the filing of a subsequent delinquency petition as to a juvenile who was already on probation automatically extends the period of the original probation beyond the date it would have expired. The special action essentially sought review of an order modifying the terms of probation, which is a final, appealable order. Id. ¶ 3. However, the court found an appeal would “not afford Andrew or any similarly situated juvenile an equally plain, speedy, or adequate means of review because the issue [would] most likely be rendered moot before an appeal [wa]s completed.” Id. Although the court acknowledged the issue likely was moot, it found the issue was one of statewide importance likely to recur and evade review; therefore the court addressed it. Id. ¶ 2. In Rita J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 512, 1 P.3d 155 (App. 2000), the court of appeals held an order entered after a permanency planning hearing was interlocutory in nature and not an appealable order.

There are a number of other cases in which the courts have accepted special-action jurisdiction in order to address important issues relating to children and parental rights. See, e.g., Lana A. v. Woodburn, 211 Ariz. 62, 64-65, ¶¶ 7-8, 116 P.3d 1222, 1224-25 (App. 2005) (addressing juveniles’ right to counsel at any hearing that might result in their detention; review was sought of predisposition, detention orders, which are interlocutory in nature and from which there is no adequate...