Blindness Cannot Be the Sole Basis for Denial
Arizona takes a clear position on disability and guardianship. A court cannot refuse to appoint a guardian simply because the individual is blind, as long as the appointment would otherwise serve the best interests of the minor.
A court may not refuse to appoint an individual as guardian of a minor based on the individual's blindness if the appointment is determined to be otherwise in the best interests of the minor.
A.R.S. § 14-5213(A)This protection reflects a broader principle: guardianship decisions should be based on actual ability to care for a child, not assumptions about disability. The statute places the focus where it belongs, on the welfare of the minor and the guardian's demonstrated capacity to serve.
A High Standard for Challenging Appointment
If someone alleges that a prospective guardian's blindness would negatively affect the child, that person carries the burden of proof. The standard is clear and convincing evidence, one of the highest standards in civil law. The allegation must show that the individual's behavior endangers or is likely to endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the minor.
If an individual's blindness is alleged to have a detrimental impact on a minor, the party who raises the allegation has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual's behavior endangers or is likely to endanger the health, safety or welfare of the minor.
A.R.S. § 14-5213(B)If the court does deny or limit the appointment, it must issue specific written findings explaining the basis for that decision. This requirement adds transparency and accountability to the process, ensuring that disability alone does not drive the outcome.