Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. A-27789
Citations: 140 Ariz. 27; 680 P.2d 163; 1983 Ariz. App. LEXIS 707Docket: No. 1 CA-JUV 195
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; May 3, 1983; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The key issue in this appeal is the jurisdiction of the Maricopa County Juvenile Court regarding an adoption petition for two minor children previously adjudicated as dependent and made wards of the Yavapai County Juvenile Court. The Maricopa County Juvenile Court dismissed the adoption petition due to lack of jurisdiction, a decision that is affirmed in this opinion. The case background reveals that on January 5, 1981, Gordon L. Grilz murdered his wife and another individual and was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. Following these events, the Arizona Department of Economic Security petitioned the Yavapai County Juvenile Court to declare the children, Derek and Margaux Grilz, as dependent minors. They became wards of the Yavapai Court, which granted temporary custody to their maternal grandmother in California. In June 1982, during a court-ordered visit with their paternal aunt and uncle in Maricopa County, the appellants filed for adoption. However, the Maricopa County judge learned that the children were still wards of Yavapai County and dismissed the adoption petition on October 25, 1982, citing a lack of jurisdiction and the requirement that the children be present in the state for adoption proceedings as mandated by A.R.S. 8-102. A copy of the court file is to be sent to Judge Rosenblatt for potential inclusion in Yavapai County Juvenile Cause 8545. The appellants argue that pending juvenile dependency proceedings in Yavapai County do not prevent them from filing an adoption petition in Maricopa County, asserting that dependency and adoption are separate statutory actions with distinct requirements. They cite A.R.S. 8-104, claiming that venue for adoption is where the petitioners reside, and since the children are residents of Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Juvenile Judge erred in dismissing their petition for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court emphasizes that under A.R.S. 8-202 A, C, and D, the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction over such proceedings. It asserts that the Yavapai County Juvenile Court maintained jurisdiction over the children as they were declared dependent after a hearing, and the ongoing dependency process must be resolved before any adoption proceedings can take place in a different jurisdiction. Allowing a second court to take jurisdiction in such circumstances would disrupt judicial order and conflict with the ongoing dependency case. The court reinforces the principle that the first court to obtain jurisdiction retains it until the case is resolved, citing precedent to prevent conflicting custody awards. It concludes that the Maricopa County Juvenile Court correctly dismissed the adoption petition due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court notes that a prior Arizona Supreme Court decision regarding jurisdiction beyond a child's 18th birthday does not affect this case's applicability. The dismissal by the Maricopa County Juvenile Court is affirmed.