Alec and Lydia Law Explained -A.R.S. § 25-403.03 – Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Law

What you need to know about Arizona’s new domestic violence and child abuse law.

With many questions swirling around the new A.R.S. § 25-403.03, we thought it would be useful to give the rundown of the new law and outline the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the new statute. The statute is a nuanced, as shown below, but we will keep it simple.

Why did the Legislature enact this bill?

The bill is named after two children who died at the hands of their father on a Court-ordered unsupervised visit. The Legislature enacted the bill on an emergency basis in order to protect the safety of children and parents who are affected by domestic violence because they felt the prior A.R.S. § 25-403.03 was not sufficiently safeguarding Arizona’s children and the parents who are victims of domestic violence at the hands of the other parent.

What does the law change?

• The law expands the definition of what constitutes domestic violence. Under the prior law, only the crimes listed in A.R.S. § 13-3601(A) counted as domestic violence. The new statute adds a second category of domestic violence, a pattern of coercive control. The statute defines what counts as coercive control and includes actions like forced social isolation and financial control. This change brings the law more in law with the modern understanding of what defines domestic violence.
• It adjusted what can be considered in the domestic violence determination. The Legislature made tweaks to the old language of what could be considered as evidence.

OLD (2014) Statute Language	2026 Statute Language
1. Findings from another court of competent jurisdiction.	1. Factual determinations related to domestic violence from a court of competent jurisdiction.
2. Police reports.	2. Evidence that is collected and reports that are prepared by a law enforcement agency, the department of child safety and any other government agency.
3. Medical reports.	3. The alleged victim’s medical or behavioral health records, if the victim waives the associated privilege and any separate right to confidentiality under state or federal law.
4. Records of the department of child safety.	See #2 above.
5. Domestic violence shelter records.	4. Records from a shelter for victims of domestic violence as defined in § 36-3001, if the victim provides informed written consent.
6. School records.	5. Educational and school records.
	6. Other acts of domestic violence against any person that tend to prove the existence of coercive control, even if those other acts have been decided, predate the last decree or could have been litigated at another time or place.
7. Witness testimony	7. Witness testimony

Comparing A.R.S. § 25-403.03(C) (2014) to A.R.S. § 25-403.03(C) (2026).

The Legislature wanted to make it easier to provide evidence that shows domestic violence, including letting it be established by testimony alone. Simultaneously, the Legislature wanted to make it less invasive on the victim. It accomplished this in three ways:

1. 1. The new law states, “Corroboration from exhibits or witness testimony of another person is not required.” Testimony alone was sufficient under the old law too, but rarely occurred in practice.
   2. Requiring permission from the alleged victim to release their medical records, behavioral records, or domestic violence shelter records.
   3. Adding the requirement

The prior A.R.S. § 25-403.03 put an emphasis on establishing domestic violence primarily through records, i.e., it listed seven item relevant factors, and five of them were records, another was the findings another court, and the final one was testimony.

Example 1: Jessica testified that Mike was abusive during their relationship. Mike argues that Jessica did not produce any corroborating evidence, including never contacting police. But under the new statute, Jessica is not required to show she reported the matter to the police to disclosed the abuse to a friend or family member.

Example 2: Mike seeks to rebut Jessica’s argument records by obtaining her medical records to show her injuries were not severe. Jessica refuses Mike’s request. Under the new statute, Mike cannot compel Jessica to disclose her medical records at least as far as it relates to his rebutting the domestic violence presumption.

The law prohibits the Court from making certain findings. This includes requiring the victim to prove that the severity of domestic violence justifies restricting parenting time or that the domestic violence was mutual (unless each parent inflicted similar injuries and were without similar justifications).

Example 1: Brad physically abuses Janet regularly during their marriage. One night, Janet got upset and broke Brad’s cell phone. Technically, both parents, therefore, committed domestic violence, but quite obviously, Brad’s domestic violence is much more severe. The Court is, therefore, prohibited from finding that the domestic violence was mutual.

Example 2: The Court finds that Cindy exercised coercive control over Andy during their marriage. But the Court finds that Andy has not shown that the coercive control was severe enough to justify restricting Cindy’s time. The Court has made a mistake, as it is not allowed to put that burden on Andy.

The law also deems certain considerations as irrelevant. The Courts may not consider such factors as whether the child was present when the domestic violence or unaware of the domestic violence. The Courts also cannot consider the “child’s preference for reinstating, maintaining or increasing contact with the parent who committed domestic violence.”

Example 1: Mike argues that, despite his abuse, the children have told him that they want to live them. This is an irrelevant factor under standard.

Example 2: Mike also argues that the abuse is no big deal because the children were never home when Mike slapped Jessica. This is not relevant.

How does the new domestic violence and child abuse statute work?

1: A parent claims to be the victim of domestic violence.

The parent claiming to be the victim of domestic violence must prove by a preponderance of evidence that domestic violence occurred. (i.e., they must show it is more likely than not that there was domestic violence.)

Presumption of the Child’s Best Interests: If the victim convinces the Court that domestic violence happened, a mandatory presumption goes into effect; the abuser should not have sole or joint legal decision-making or parenting time (i.e., custody). A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D) because that is not in the child’s best interests.

2: The parent accused of committing domestic violence gets a chance to rebut the presumption:

For Decision-making: To be awarded sole legal decision-making, the parent must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence (i.e., they must produce evidence that is highly probable and reasonably certain that it is in the child’s best interests).

For Supervised Parenting Time: The parent must rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., they must show it’s more likely than not that supervised parenting time would be in the child’s best interests).

For Unsupervised Parenting Time: The parent must rebut the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Important Note: Notice that the issues in step 1 and 2 are different.
• Step 1, the parent alleging domestic violence is showing domestic violence occurred.
• Step 2, after the presumption kicks in, the issue is no longer whether domestic violence occurred, rather it is whether order legal decision-making or parenting time is in the child’s best interests.

3: If awarding parenting time or legal decision-making to the “abusive” parent, the Court must implement certain precautions that prioritize the safety.

These precautions can include requiring exchanges to happen in a safe location, certain requirements for parenting supervisors to follow, prohibiting overnight parenting time with the child, requiring the parent to complete an domestic violence assessment or counseling, or requiring the address of the domestic violence victim remain confidential.

Example of How the statute works:

Parties:
John – alleged “victim”
Sarah – alleged “abuser”
Child

1. John accused Sarah of domestic violence. John testifies that several instances of domestic violence/coercive control happened during their marriage. The judge agrees that it is more likely than not that Sarah committed domestic violence.

The Mandatory Presumption takes effect. That Sarah, the abuser, should not have sole or joint legal decision-making or parenting time of the child (i.e., custody). A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D) because that is not in the child’s best interests.

2. Sarah must now convince the judge that allowing her to share in legal decision-making or have unsupervised parenting time will be in the child’s best interest. In fact, Sarah needs to make the judge feel certain that the child and the other parent will be safe and not be harmed from this arrangement. Sarah fails to convince the judge that having unsupervised parenting time and a share of legal-decision making is in the child’s best interests.

3. The Court then cannot award Sarah decision-making or unsupervised parenting time. As a result, John is awarded sole legal decision-making and becomes the primary custodial parent.

a. But Sarah has a chance at supervised parenting time if she can convince the judge that such an arrangement will serve the child’s best interests. For this, the Court just has to find it is more likely than not that supervised parenting time will be in the child’s best interests. Sarah convinces the judge on this point.

The Court awards Sarah supervised parenting, but the Court conditions Sarah’s parenting time on Sarah enrolling in and completing a batterer’s prevention program, enrolling in counseling, and ensuring the supervisor has a copy of the Parenting Plan.

Who does A.R.S. § 25-403.03 apply to?

The new statute applies to acts of violence where a parent commits domestic violence against either (1) the other parent, or (2) a child living in either parent’s home. A.R.S. § 25-403.03

Example: Peter and Courtney have a child together. Peter recently married Amy and now lives with Amy’s three children from a prior relationship. Peter screams at and slaps one of his stepchildren.

• That would count as domestic violence for purposes of A.R.S. § 25-403.03.

Example: What if instead of hitting the stepchild, Peter slaps Amy (his new wife)?

• That would not count as domestic violence for purposes of A.R.S. § 25-403.03. For domestic violence against adults, the presumption applies only to violence between the two parents.

Note: (1) If it tends to prove the existence of coercive control, it may nonetheless be considered, (2) it counts as domestic violence under A.R.S. § 13-3601 and can be the basis for Amy seeking a protective order, and (3) the domestic violence may be considered in other parts of the best interests analysis.

Example: Cameron also started dating and has been dating Erin for two months. Erin has a child from a different relationship. Cameron spends the night at Erin’s house. The next morning, Cameron slaps Erin’s daughter.

• Cameron does not live with the child he abused. That would not count as domestic violence for purposes of whether the mandatory presumption of A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D) would apply. But like above, it may be considered if goes toward showing the existence of coercive control. Moreover, it will likely factor into other parts of the best interests analysis. Also, it is worth noting that Cameron’s actions are child abuse, a Class 5 felony under A.R.S. § 13-3623.

When does the law apply?

The statute was adopted on an emergency basis on June 23, 2026. But the statute did not have a clause stating it was retroactive. Therefore, under A.R.S. § 1-244, it can only be applied prospectively. That has led to some confusion about whether it will apply to cases that were pending on its adoption date or to acts that occurred before. The bill did not contain a retroactive date. And in 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court held that, absent a retroactive declaration, a statute cannot change the legal analysis mid-case. Krol v. Industrial Comm’n, 259 Ariz. 261 (2025). Yet the bill’s sponsor released a statement that it should apply to all active cases.

At this point, it is not entirely clear how Courts will apply this, but this much we know for sure, if a petition is filed after June 23, 2026 that describes acts that occurred after June 23, 2026, the law applies.

Example: Tim and Sally began their relationship on June 30, 2026. During the time they were together, Sally called Tim disparaging names, isolated Tim from family and friends, and monitored Tim’s spending. A child was born to Tim and Sally in November 2027. Thereafter, the couple split up. A Petition to Establish custody was filed in January 2028. Tim wants to argue the coercive control provisions of A.R.S. § 25-403.03.

• The new A.R.S. § 25-403.03 applies. The Petition was filed after June 23, 2026, and the acts complained of occurred after June 23, 2026.

Example: Same example as above, but here, the couple was together from June 2024 to November 2025. The Petition was filed in January 2026.

• Most likely, the Court would not apply the new statute. The acts complained of and the Petition both predated June 23, 2026.

Example: Same example as above, but here, the couple was together from June 2024 to November 2025, but the Petition was not filed until July 2026.

• This is a much closer call because the Petition was filed while the new law was in effect, but the acts occurred prior to that date. We have heard some judges and lawyers contend that it would be inappropriate and unfair

Where does the law apply?

It applies to custody cases in Arizona. Custody cases occurring in other states will follow the laws of those states, even where the alleged domestic violence occurred in Arizona.