How Arizona’s 2026 Domestic Violence Law Changes Custody and Parenting Time

Arizona substantially rewrote the way domestic violence affects custody decisions in 2026. House Bill 2995, known as the Alec and Lydia Act, became Chapter 263 of the 2026 session and took effect as an emergency measure on June 22, 2026. It overhauled A.R.S. § 25-403.03, the statute courts use when domestic violence is alleged in legal decision-making and parenting time cases, and amended the rules for temporary orders and later modifications.

At Castle Law, we focus on high-conflict custody and complex family law matters for parents in Mesa, Phoenix, and surrounding Arizona communities. Whether you’re raising domestic violence concerns or responding to them, understanding the new framework is essential to preparing your case. Contact Castle Law at (480) 542-5885 to discuss your situation.

The New Law Makes Safety the Highest Priority

The revised A.R.S. § 25-403.03 now opens with a declared public policy: courts must consider domestic violence, including child abuse, as contrary to a child’s best interests. The statute applies this policy notwithstanding A.R.S. § 25-103(B), the provision that generally favors meaningful time with both parents. In every legal decision-making and parenting time matter, the court must assign the highest priority to the personal safety and physical, mental, and emotional well-being of both the child and the domestic violence victim.

Courts Must Make More Detailed Written Findings

Before entering an order for legal decision-making or parenting time, the court must resolve any domestic violence allegation through specific written findings on the record. Where evidence was admitted at a trial or evidentiary hearing, the court must provide:

• A description of the evidence: A thorough description of the evidence that justified or prevented a finding that domestic violence occurred.
• An explanation on the presumption: After weighing each required factor, a thorough explanation of why a parent who committed domestic violence did or did not rebut the mandatory presumption.
• A justification for precautions: A thorough explanation of why the safety precautions the court chose are in the child’s best interests.

Domestic Violence Claims Use a Preponderance Standard

A domestic violence claim must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it’s more likely than not that the domestic violence occurred. The statute also states that corroboration from exhibits or another person’s testimony is not required. A parent’s own credible testimony can be enough, though the court still weighs all the evidence presented.

The Evidence List Is Broader and More Specific

The revised statute lists the evidence courts must consider, subject to the evidentiary standard for the proceeding:

• Court findings: Factual determinations about domestic violence from a court of competent jurisdiction.
• Agency records: Evidence and reports from law enforcement, the Department of Child Safety, and other government agencies.
• Medical and behavioral health records: The alleged victim’s records, if the victim waives the applicable privilege and confidentiality rights.
• Shelter records: Records from a domestic violence shelter, if the victim gives informed written consent.
• School records: Educational and school records.
• Other acts: Other acts of domestic violence against any person that tend to prove coercive control, even if those acts were already decided, predate the last decree, or could have been litigated elsewhere.
• Witness testimony: Testimony from the parties and others.

Coercive Control Can Be Relevant

The amended statute defines domestic violence to include coercive control, meaning a pattern of violent, threatening, coercive, or emotionally abusive conduct by one parent against the other. Examples in the statute include:

• Threats and assault: Physical or sexual assault, or threats to harm a person or pet.
• Isolation and financial control: Cutting the other parent off from friends and family, or controlling their finances.
• Harassment and surveillance: Stalking, harassment, or using tracking technology.
• Legal and personal leverage: Threatening to publish sensitive information, filing false or frivolous claims, or jeopardizing immigration status.

Ordinary conflict between separating parents doesn’t qualify on its own, and self-defense is excluded.

A Finding of Domestic Violence Triggers a Mandatory Rebuttable Presumption

If the court finds a parent committed domestic violence, it must presume that awarding that parent legal decision-making or parenting time is contrary to the child’s best interests. Unlike the prior law, which applied the presumption only to legal decision-making, the new presumption covers both. The court also can’t require the victim to prove the violence was severe or frequent, and it can’t label the violence mutual unless both parents acted with similar lack of justification and caused similar injury.

When a parent tries to rebut the presumption, the court weighs:

• Severity and frequency: How serious and how often the violence occurred.
• Accountability: Whether the parent denied or minimized it.
• Timing: Whether enough time has passed to matter.
• Impact on the child: Whether the child has imitated the behavior.
• Treatment: The parent’s participation in a program, though a completion certificate alone isn’t enough.

The court must ignore the child’s absence from the violence, unawareness of it, and preference for more contact.

Different Requests Carry Different Evidentiary Burdens

The burden on a parent restricted by the presumption depends on what that parent is seeking:

Courts Have a Defined Set of Safety Precautions

For a parent who has committed domestic violence, the court must adopt precautions that prioritize the safety and well-being of the child and other parent. Authorized precautions include:

• Protected exchanges: Requiring exchanges at a protected or designated safe exchange location.
• Limited parenting time: Restricting parenting time, including prohibiting overnights.
• Supervision: Designating a professional agency or qualifying laypeople to supervise. The victim can’t serve as supervisor, and lay supervisors must meet specific requirements.
• Supervision costs: Requiring the parent who committed domestic violence to pay for supervision.
• Suspension of contact: Suspending access to the child until that parent petitions to modify the order.
• Intervention programs: Requiring an assessment or program of intervention and other counseling.
• Substance restrictions: Requiring abstinence and random testing if the court finds substance abuse.
• Bonds and confidentiality: Requiring a bond for the child’s safe return and keeping the child’s and other parent’s addresses confidential.
• Other conditions: Imposing any other condition necessary to protect the child, the other parent, or household members.

The court also can’t order a victim, whether the child or a parent, to participate in treatment, counseling, or a forensic assessment together with the parent who committed domestic violence.

The Law Also Affects Temporary Orders and Later Modifications

The new law reaches beyond final custody orders. Under the amended A.R.S. § 25-404, if any party in a temporary orders proceeding alleges domestic violence, the court must make written findings consistent with § 25-403.03, though those findings may be limited to the evidence admitted at the temporary orders hearing. Under the amended A.R.S. § 25-411, a parent who previously failed to rebut the presumption remains subject to it in later modification proceedings, regardless of the allegations in the new pleadings. 

Whether new evidence overcomes the presumption must be resolved as a preliminary matter when the court decides whether circumstances have changed enough to allow modification. Our page on post-decree modifications explains how these proceedings work.

What the New Law Does Not Mean

The new framework is significant, but it’s not an automatic custody ban. An allegation isn’t a finding, and the presumption applies only after a court determines that domestic violence occurred. Every case remains evidence-driven, and the outcome depends on what’s proven, how the court applies the statutory factors, and whether the presumption is rebutted. The statute also doesn’t replace emergency safety resources. 

If you’re in immediate danger, call 911, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline is available at 1-800-799-7233. Because the law applies differently depending on the facts and procedural posture of each case, it isn’t a substitute for individualized legal advice.

Talk With Castle Law About the New Arizona Custody Framework

Castle Law practices family law exclusively, and our team brings more than 70 years of combined experience to child custody, domestic violence, and high-conflict and safety cases. We help parents understand how the new statute applies to their situation, organize the evidence the court will consider, and prepare for the written findings the law now requires. 

Contact Castle Law at (480) 542-5885 to discuss how Arizona’s new domestic violence custody framework may affect your family.

Arizona 2026 Domestic Violence Law Frequently Asked Questions

When did HB 2995 take effect?

HB 2995 took effect on June 22, 2026. The Legislature passed it as an emergency measure, which allowed it to become operative immediately rather than waiting for the general effective date for new laws.

Does a domestic violence allegation automatically eliminate parenting time?

No. The court must first determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether domestic violence occurred. If it did, the mandatory presumption applies, but the parent can attempt to rebut it under the statutory burdens, and the court must explain its decisions and choice of safety precautions in written findings.

Can the new law affect an existing custody order?

It can come into play when a party seeks to modify an existing order, since the amended modification statute addresses how the presumption applies in those proceedings. How it affects a specific order depends on the case history, prior findings, and the relief requested, so it requires a case-specific analysis.