the Guerras a duty of care here is not inconsistent with the decisions in Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304, 206 P.3d 753 (App.2008), or Morton v. Maricopa County, 177 Ariz. 147, 865 P.2d 808 (App.1993). Neither of those cases involved a direct relationship between the police and the relatives of the deceased. Rather, the plaintiffs’ claims in those cases centered on what the police did not do (such as failing to solve a homicide quickly, to identify an accident victim, or to promptly reach out to the family). Here, by contrast, a direct relationship resulted once police officers undertook to contact the Guerras to advise them of their daughter’s death (a function whose primary purpose, unlike that in Morton, was to benefit the surviving relatives). See 177 Ariz. at 151, 865 P.2d at 812 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Guerras’ complaint rests on
holding that no special relationship existed because the purpose of identifying human remains is primarily to foster public safety through the investigation of suspected homicides and this function only incidentally benefits friends and relatives recognizing the existence of the special relationship holding the foster parent did not possess a liberty interest in her relationship with the foster child holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that the trial court did not err in finding that a trust relationship existed between a foster mother and foster child where it found that the child immediately became attached to the foster mother and was confiding in her when she made statements admitted under the hearsay exception