Maryn B. and Zanielle G. v. Hon. Padilla/dcs, 1 CA-SA 19-0294

DCS filed a dependency petition for newborn W; W was placed with Maryn B. and Zanielle G. (Foster Parents) three days after birth and remained in their care until December 13, 2019.
Mother filed Rule 59 motions seeking return of W; an evidentiary hearing was continued to December 13, 2019.
Parents later filed a joint emergency motion alleging Foster Parents shared sensitive information (including Father’s criminal history) and threatened media exposure; DCS opposed those allegations.
At the December 13 hearing Mother orally moved to exclude Foster Parents; Judge Padilla excluded them (but did not close the courtroom) without on‑the‑record findings or giving Foster Parents an opportunity to be heard.
After Foster Parents left, a court staff email relaying their comments prompted DCS to initiate an “emergent removal;” Judge Padilla said he would “pre‑approve” a placement change, and DCS removed W without providing notice or following A.R.S. § 8‑515.05 procedures.
Foster Parents sought relief; this special action challenges (1) their exclusion from the hearing and (2) DCS’s removal of W without complying with the statutory removal/notice and case‑conference process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding Foster Parents from the Dec. 13 hearing was lawful	Foster Parents: exclusion denied their Rule 41(I)(B) right to be heard and was ordered without findings or opportunity to respond	Mother: exclusion necessary due to alleged misconduct and risk of disclosure; DCS/GAL opposed exclusion	Court: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; judge should have allowed Foster Parents to be heard and made findings tied to Rule 41(C) factors
Whether DCS properly removed W without following A.R.S. § 8‑515.05	Foster Parents: removal violated § 8‑515.05 notice, 72‑hour case conference, and majority‑vote requirements	DCS: removal was effectively authorized by the court or justified by exception for protecting the child from harm	Court: § 8‑515.05 applied; no evidence or findings of immediate harm; removal without notice/case conference unlawful; emergency removal vacated and remanded for statutory process (but immediate return request denied; child to remain pending the § 8‑515.05 case conference or further court order)

Jewel C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 347 (discusses appealability of placement changes and special‑action jurisdiction)
Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231 (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Johnson v. Elson, 192 Ariz. 486 (inferential findings and abuse of discretion principles)
Roberto F. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 232 Ariz. 45 (participant status and rights of foster parents in juvenile proceedings)