Arizona Custody Forms & Panic‑Search Guides

Statutes

• A.R.S. § 25-320 — Child Support; Factors; Enforcement

  The court may order either or both parents to pay an amount reasonable and necessary for the child's support, without regard to marital misconduct. The amount produced by the Arizona Supreme Court's child support guidelines is the amount ordered unless the court makes a written finding, based on criteria approved by the supreme court, that applying the guidelines would be inappropriate or unjust, and the superior court may not use the statute's listed factors on its own, apart from the guidelines, except in specified situations. If no support order exists, the court shall order past support using the guidelines back to the date of filing, and if the parents lived apart before filing it may order support back to the date of separation but no more than three years before filing, after considering all relevant circumstances, including the parties' conduct and diligence in service. Without contrary testimony, a parent is presumed able to work full time at no less than the higher of the state or federal adult minimum wage (except a noncustodial parent under 18 who is attending high school). Support continues past the age of majority while the child is actually attending high school or an equivalency program, but only until age 19, and may continue for an adult child with a severe disability that began before majority; this section does not address modifying an existing support order. An existing support order may be modified only on a showing of changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing, and a modification generally takes effect on the first day of the month after notice of the petition (A.R.S. § 25-327(A)).

• A.R.S. § 25-403 — Legal Decision-Making; Best Interests of the Child

  The court shall decide legal decision-making and parenting time, whether originally or on a petition for modification, according to the child's best interests, considering all factors relevant to the child's physical and emotional well-being. The listed factors include: the past, present and potential future parent-child relationship; the child's relationships with parents, siblings and others; the child's adjustment to home, school and community; the child's wishes if of suitable age and maturity; the mental and physical health of everyone involved; which parent is more likely to allow frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the other parent (not applied against a parent acting in good faith to protect the child from domestic violence or child abuse); whether a parent intentionally misled the court to cause delay, raise litigation costs or gain a preference; domestic violence or child abuse under § 25-403.03; coercion or duress in obtaining an agreement; whether a parent has complied with chapter 3, article 5 of Title 25; and whether either parent was convicted of falsely reporting child abuse or neglect. In a contested case the court shall make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons the decision is in the child's best interests. The section does not rank the factors and does not set the threshold for reopening an order; timing and affidavit requirements for modification are in § 25-411. Although § 25-403 does not rank its factors, a domestic-violence finding under § 25-403.03 (as rewritten by HB 2995, operative June 22, 2026) creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent legal decision-making or parenting time is contrary to the child's best interests, and § 25-403.04 creates a rebuttable presumption against sole or joint legal decision-making for a parent found to have abused drugs or alcohol, or convicted of a listed drug or DUI offense, within twelve months before the petition.

• A.R.S. § 25-403.01 — Sole and Joint Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time

  The court may order sole or joint legal decision-making. In deciding the level of decision-making that is in the child's best interests, the court shall consider the § 25-403(A) factors and all of the following: whether the parents agree to joint legal decision-making; whether a parent's lack of agreement is unreasonable or influenced by an issue unrelated to the child's best interests; the parents' past, present and future abilities to cooperate in decision-making to the extent a joint order requires; and whether joint legal decision-making is logistically possible. A parent with sole legal decision-making may not unilaterally change a court-ordered parenting-time plan. A parent who is not granted sole or joint legal decision-making is entitled to reasonable parenting time ensuring substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time would endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health. This section creates no presumption for or against joint decision-making or equal parenting time, but other sections do: under § 25-403.03 as rewritten by HB 2995 (Laws 2026, ch. 263, operative June 22, 2026), if the court finds a parent committed domestic violence, that parent may not be granted sole or joint legal decision-making or unsupervised parenting time unless the parent overcomes a mandatory presumption by clear and convincing evidence, or supervised parenting time unless the parent overcomes it by a preponderance of the evidence, and the other parent does not have to prove the violence was severe or frequent enough to justify restrictions; and under § 25-403.04 there is a rebuttable presumption against sole or joint legal decision-making for a parent the court finds abused drugs or alcohol, or was convicted of a listed drug or DUI offense, within twelve months before the petition or request was filed.

• A.R.S. § 25-403.03 — Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

  As rewritten by the Alec and Lydia Act (HB 2995, Laws 2026, ch. 263, approved and operative June 22, 2026 under an emergency clause; the act contains no clause addressing cases already pending), domestic violence for this section means an act under § 13-3601(A), or coercive control (a defined pattern of violent, threatening, coercive or emotionally abusive conduct, such as isolation, financial control, stalking or harassment, threats, and using litigation to force the other parent to defend false claims), committed by one parent against the other parent or against a minor child living in either parent's household, excluding self-defense and defense of another. A domestic-violence claim must be established by a preponderance of the evidence and needs no corroboration, and if the court finds a parent committed domestic violence there is a mandatory rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent legal decision-making or parenting time is contrary to the child's best interests; the victim need not prove the violence was severe or frequent enough to justify restrictions, and the court may not call the violence mutual or apply the presumption to both parents unless both lacked justification to a similar degree and inflicted similar injury, otherwise applying it only to the parent whose conduct was more serious. The court may not grant a parent subject to the presumption sole or joint legal decision-making or unsupervised parenting time unless that parent overcomes the presumption by clear and convincing evidence, or supervised parenting time unless that parent overcomes it by a preponderance of the evidence. On rebuttal the court must consider the severity and frequency of the parent's violence against any person (including injury or trauma, weapons, strangulation and multiple forms of coercive control), denial or minimizing, whether the passage of time mitigates, whether the child has imitated the behavior, and treatment (a completion certificate alone is not proof of rehabilitation), and must disregard the child's absence from or unawareness of the violence and the child's preference for more contact. Before entering a legal decision-making or parenting-time order, including a temporary order under § 25-404(D), the court must resolve any domestic-violence allegation with specific written findings on the evidence admitted, and for a parent who committed domestic violence it shall adopt precautions prioritizing the safety and well-being of the child and other parent (such as protected exchanges, limits including no overnights, supervision by someone other than the victim, suspension of contact, perpetrator treatment, substance testing where substance abuse is found, or a bond), may not order the victim into joint treatment or assessment with that parent, and the presumption continues in later modification proceedings under § 25-411.

• A.R.S. § 25-408 — Relocation of Child; Parenting Time; Notice

  If a written agreement or court order gives both parents joint legal decision-making or parenting time and both parents live in Arizona, a parent must give the other parent at least 45 days' advance written notice (by certified mail, return receipt requested, or under the family-law rules) before relocating the child outside the state or more than 100 miles within the state, and the court shall sanction a parent who fails to give notice without good cause. The other parent has 30 days after notice to petition to prevent the relocation; after that, a petition may be granted only on a showing of good cause. The notice rule does not apply if a court order or written agreement dated within one year of the move already provides for the relocation, and while a petition is pending a parent with sole legal decision-making (or joint legal decision-making and primary residence) who must move in under 45 days because of health, safety, employment or eviction may relocate temporarily, but a parent with joint legal decision-making and substantially equal parenting time may do so only if both parents sign a written agreement. The court decides by the child's best interests, the parent seeking to relocate bears the burden of proof, and the court shall consider all relevant factors, including the 25-403 factors, good or bad faith in making or opposing the move, the move's advantage for the quality of life of the custodial parent or the child, the likelihood of compliance with parenting-time orders, whether the move allows a realistic opportunity for parenting time with each parent, the effect on the child's needs and stability, and each parent's motives, including any intent to gain a child-support advantage. A parenting-plan or written-agreement provision allowing or prohibiting relocation is rebuttably presumed to be in the child's best interests, and the court shall assess attorney fees and costs against a parent who unreasonably denies, restricts or interferes with court-ordered parenting time. If the child is relocated under this section, all parties must continue to comply with current court orders, regardless of distance moved or notice required, unless the court orders otherwise (§ 25-408(E)). In deciding whether a parent's absence or relocation counts against that parent, the court may consider whether it was caused by an act of domestic violence by the other parent (§ 25-403.03(L)).

• A.R.S. § 25-411 — Modification of Legal Decision-Making or Parenting Time

  A motion to modify a legal decision-making or parenting-time decree may not be filed earlier than one year after the decree unless the court allows it on affidavits showing reason to believe the child's present environment may seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health; a joint legal decision-making order may be challenged at any time on evidence that, since it was entered, domestic violence involving a violation of § 13-1201 or § 13-1204, spousal abuse, or child abuse occurred, and after six months for the other parent's failure to comply with it. To modify legal decision-making the moving party must file an affidavit or verified petition with detailed facts and give the other parties a copy, and the court shall deny the motion unless the pleadings establish adequate cause for a hearing; neither requirement applies to a request that only modifies or clarifies parenting time without changing legal decision-making. The court may modify parenting time whenever it would serve the child's best interests but shall not restrict a parent's parenting time unless it finds the parenting time would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health, and if a parent is charged with a dangerous crime against children, child molestation, or domestic violence in which the victim is a minor, the other parent may seek an expedited hearing and the court may suspend parenting time or change legal decision-making ex parte until then. Under HB 2995 (Laws 2026, ch. 263, operative June 22, 2026), a parent who committed domestic violence and previously failed to rebut the § 25-403.03(D) presumption remains subject to it in any modification, regardless of the allegations in the new pleadings, and whether it can now be overcome is decided first, when the court decides whether a sufficient change of circumstances has occurred; for such a parent, § 25-403.03(G) separately bars unsupervised parenting time unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The section does not define the general change-of-circumstances standard (it mentions a 'real, substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances' only in the military-deployment context), and the court shall assess fees and costs against a party whose modification action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.

• A.R.S. § 25-411(A), (K) - Endangerment Exception to the One-Year Bar; Expedited Hearing and Ex Parte Suspension of Parenting Time

  A parent may not move to modify a legal decision-making or parenting time decree within one year of its date unless the court allows it on affidavits showing reason to believe the child's present environment may seriously endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health. If, while an order is in effect, one parent is charged with a dangerous crime against children, child molestation, or an act of domestic violence in which the victim is a minor, the other parent may petition for an expedited hearing, and pending that hearing the court may suspend parenting time or change legal decision-making ex parte. The statute does not set a number of days within which the expedited hearing must be held. As amended by Laws 2026, ch. 263 (HB 2995, the Alec and Lydia Act, an emergency measure operative on approval June 22, 2026), a parent who previously failed to rebut the domestic-violence presumption of § 25-403.03(D) remains subject to it in any modification proceeding. Apart from these emergency routes, the court may change parenting time whenever that serves the child's best interests, but it shall not restrict a parent's parenting time unless it finds the parenting time would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health (§ 25-411(J)).

• A.R.S. § 25-411(A), (M), (N) - Modification of Joint Legal Decision-Making for Failure to Comply With the Order

  Six months after a joint legal decision-making order is entered, a parent may petition the court to modify the order based on the other parent's failure to comply with its provisions, without waiting for the usual one-year bar. The petitioning parent must file an affidavit or verified petition setting out detailed facts and give the other parties notice and a copy; the court shall deny the motion unless the pleadings establish adequate cause for a hearing. The court shall assess attorney fees and costs against a party seeking modification if it finds the action vexatious and harassing. These subsections were renumbered (formerly L and M) by Laws 2026, ch. 263 (HB 2995), without change to this rule. This six-month route applies only to joint legal decision-making orders; a request that only modifies or clarifies parenting time does not need the affidavit and adequate-cause showing (§ 25-411(O)).

• A.R.S. § 25-414 — Violation of Visitation or Parenting Time Rights; Penalties

  If, on a verified petition and after reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, the court finds that a parent refused without good cause to comply with a visitation or parenting-time order, the court shall do at least one of the following: find the parent in contempt; order make-up parenting time; order parent education or family counseling at the violating parent's expense; impose civil penalties of up to $100 per violation; order both parents into mediation or other alternative dispute resolution at the violating parent's expense; or make any other order that may promote the child's best interests. Within 25 days of service of the petition, the court shall hold a hearing or conference before a judge, commissioner or court appointee to review the noncompliance. The violating parent shall pay the nonviolating parent's court costs and attorney fees associated with the review, and if the custodial parent prevails the court may, in its discretion, award that parent costs and fees.