What changed on June 22, 2026?
What has changed? Arizona family courts before the Act and what changed on June 22, 2026. The comparison covers child safety, court remedies, treatment requirements, evidence, excluded evidence, and written findings.
Contrary to Child’s Best Interests
The Presumption
A presumption applied only against joint legal decision-making where the court found “significant” domestic violence or a pattern of domestic violence. Even with a domestic violence finding, the parent could still receive 50-50 parenting time, and could still be awarded sole or primary legal decision-making. “significance” was not defined nor was it consistently ruled upon.
A finding of domestic violence (by a preponderance of evidence) creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that legal decision-making and parenting time is contrary to the child’s best interests. The abusive parent has to rebut the presumption by a judicial analysis of several factors.
Legal decision-making
Even after a finding of domestic violence the abusive parent could be awarded joint or sole legal decision. Often times the abused parent was forced to co-parent with the abuser.
If the presumption is not rebutted, the court shall not grant joint or sole legal decision making. The victim no longer has to coparent with the abuser.
Parenting time
The abused parent had to argue that the abusive parent was a danger to the child. The court rarely prohibited parenting time and the abuser was often awarded 50-50 parenting time. The courts often ordered the victim parent to co-parenting or high conflict class with the abuser instead of recognizing it as domestic violence.
If the parent does not rebut the presumption, they cannot be awarded unsupervised parenting time without some restrictions. The court must order from the following: supervised parenting time, exchanges in a protected or safe location, limit or prohibit overnight parenting time, require the abusive parent to pay the cost of supervision, a domestic violence intervention program and any other counseling, abstinence from alcohol or drugs, require a bond for the child’s safe return, keep the child’s and victim’s address confidential, or suspend child access entirely until the abusive parent petitions the court to modify under the modification statute. The court can also impose any other condition it finds necessary to protect the child and the victim parent.
Child Safety
Domestic violence was one of several best interests factors considered with all the other factors.
Child safety is the stated public policy of Arizona and has priority over parental access.
Standard of proof
Domestic violence standard was preponderance of evidence.
Domestic violence can be proved by a preponderance of evidence. (more likely than not). The Act specifically states that corroboration from exhibits or a witness is not required. A parent’s testimony can establish domestic violence.
How the Court Decides if the Presumption Has Been Rebutted
The parent who committed domestic violence could rebut the presumption largely by performative actions such as showing completion of a batterer’s program, drug or alcohol testing, or attending a parenting class.
There is no heightened standard such as clear and convincing to rebut the presumption. The court shall review and apply its own severity findings (injury, weapons, strangulation, coercive control, denial or minimization, and passage of time), consider collateral acts against anyone. Any treatment program is scrutinized under the strict proof requirements and a certificate alone is not enough. If the parent does not satisfy this analysis, the presumption is not rebutted. The court must make this analysis in written findings.
Coercive control
This type of abuse was sometimes considered domestic violence but not consistently.
Coercive control is now defined as domestic violence and includes a listed set of examples the court can recognize: taking away a person’s liberty, stripping their sense of self, isolating them from friends and family, depriving them of independence, regulating their everyday behavior, monitoring or controlling their finances, monitoring or controlling their activities and communications, frequent name-calling or degrading them, threatening to harm or kill them or their child or a pet, threatening suicide or self-harm to control them, threatening to publish sensitive or explicit information, threatening false reports to law enforcement, damaging their property, threats involving immigration status, and forcing them into criminal activity.
Court Remedies
Treatment Programs and Classes
The court could order an anger management class or some other type of batterers class but had no specific requirements or time length. The courts failed to distinguish between anger management and domestic violence.
The court may order the abusive parent to complete an assessment and a program of intervention for perpetrators of domestic violence plus any other counseling it determines is appropriate. Completing a program is also one way the abusive parent can voluntarily try to rebut the presumption but only if the program meets the statute’s requirements and the parent proves the four things listed below under treatment certificate. Attendance alone is not enough.
Treatment Requirements
No detailed statutory standard. An anger management class was acceptable. This was not typically ordered in family court but was ordered by criminal court if there was an arrest for domestic violence.
The Act directs the court to consider the Administrative Code standards (A.A.C. R9-20-208):
- Conducted by a behavioral health professional with at least six months of experience with domestic violence or criminal offenders, or supervised by one.
- At least 26 sessions for a first offense, 36 for a second, 52 for a third or later.
- Individual sessions at least 50 minutes; group sessions 90 to 180 minutes.
- Must emphasize personal responsibility and identify domestic violence as power and control.
- May not be disproportionately anger management, conflict resolution, couples counseling, or general education.
Treatment Certificate
A certificate or proof of attendance was often accepted.
A certificate of completion alone is not proof of rehabilitation. The court cannot consider it as automatic proof that the presumption is rebutted.
To use a completed program as rebuttal, the certificate must be accompanied by all of the following:
- A waiver of privilege and confidentiality releasing the treatment records to the court and to the victim.
- Proof the program was relevant and proportionate to the domestic violence for which the parent was adjudicated.
- A demonstrated understanding of how the abuse harmed the child and the other parent.
- Proof the program reduced any tendency to minimize or rationalize the abuse.
Joint Counseling With the Abuser
Courts could order the victim parent or child to attend counseling with the abuser.
The court may not order the victim or the child into any joint treatment, counseling, or forensic assessment with the abusive parent.
Evidence
Access to the abuser’s treatment records
Treatment and counseling records were typically privileged and confidential, and very difficult to obtain or get an order to obtain.
The abusive parent must waive privilege and confidentiality, which entitles the victim and the court to the records.
HIPAA
The abuser generally did not have to disclose their records or sign releases.
The abusive parent must provide the records and sign a HIPAA release.
Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Drug abuse evaluation could be ordered along with random drug and alcohol testing. Once a parent completed the testing it was difficult to get another order once the parent resumed the drug or alcohol abuse.
The court may order the abusive parent to abstain from possessing or consuming alcohol, other intoxicants, or controlled substances. Abstinence is not limited to parenting time. The court can order random drug or alcohol testing.
Past Domestic Violence
Courts excluded domestic violence that could have been raised earlier. If a victim did reveal domestic violence in the record previously, it was never allowed into evidence.
Past acts of domestic violence are now admissible even if they were never raised before, predate the current orders, or could have been litigated elsewhere. This includes collateral acts, meaning domestic violence the abusive parent committed against other people, not only against you, when those acts show a pattern, a motive, or help explain your response.
Victims Medical or Mental Health Records
Medical and mental health records could be requested during discovery to re-traumatize the victim. It amounted to victim blaming and was a domestic violence tactic.
The victim can choose whether to waive the privilege and introduce certain records from their medical treatment, therapy and similar records.
Evidence Excluded
Three Specifics: Child not present during domestic violence, child unaware of domestic violence or child states preference for wanting to be with the abuser
Courts often assumed that since the child did not witness the abuse or was unaware of it, they were safe with the abuser. The court could also give preference to the abuser if the child wanted to be with that parent.
These 3 specific issues are now irrelevant and inadmissible because it is known that children are affected by domestic violence and unsafe with the abuser. It is also known that abusive parents are often very performative and conniving.
Written Findings
Written findings
Written findings were required after final trials.
Written findings are required including at temporary orders. These findings are reviewed de novo on appeal.
