What Judges Must Now Do When Domestic Violence Is Alleged in an Arizona Divorce with Children

For a long time in Arizona family court, domestic violence evidence was presented, heard, and then often did not change parenting time decisions. Judges had broad discretion in how they weighed it, whether they connected it to the parenting analysis, and whether they put any of their reasoning in writing. That discretion produced inconsistent outcomes. It produced outcomes that did not always protect children. And it produced orders that victims had no real way to challenge because there was nothing written down to challenge.

The Alec and Lydia Act, effective June 22, 2026, changes that. It narrows judicial discretion in domestic violence cases in ways that are specific, mandatory, and enforceable. This article explains what judges are now required to do and what they are no longer permitted to do when domestic violence is alleged in a case involving children.

If you are a victim of domestic violence going through a divorce in Arizona right now, understanding what the court must do is understanding what you are entitled to. These are not requests. They are legal requirements.

The court must now treat child safety as the highest priority

The Alec and Lydia Act begins with a public policy declaration that did not exist in Arizona law before. Domestic violence is contrary to a child’s best interests. The safety and wellbeing of the child and the domestic violence victim are the highest priority in any family court proceeding where domestic violence is present.

That declaration matters because it sits above the general presumption in Arizona law that frequent and continuing contact with both parents is in the child’s best interests. When there is domestic violence the safety priority overrides the presumption that both parents should have parenting time. The judge can no longer give equal weight to both. Safety comes first.

The court must make specific written findings

This is one of the most significant changes in the new law and one of the most important for victims to understand. Under the old law, judges were not required to make written findings resolving domestic violence allegations before entering a parenting order especially in a temporary orders hearing. A judge could hear testimony about abuse, read police reports, read the Order of Protection, and then issue a parenting time schedule without writing a single word about how any of that evidence was weighed or what it meant for the child’s time with the abusive parent.

The Alec and Lydia Act now requires the court to make specific written findings on the record any time domestic violence is alleged and any time the court enters an order addressing legal decision making or parenting time. Those findings must address at minimum three things.

• First, the court must provide a thorough description of the evidence that justified or prevented a finding that domestic violence occurred. Not a summary. A thorough description. The judge must engage with the actual evidence presented.
• Second, if the court finds domestic violence occurred, it must explain in writing whether the abusive parent rebutted the mandatory presumption by clear and convincing evidence for unsupervised parenting time and preponderance of evidence for supervised parenting time and how. If the abusive parent fails to rebut the presumption and the court is still awarding some form of parenting time, that deviation requires a written explanation.
• Third, the court must explain in writing why its chosen protective conditions or its decision not to impose protective conditions is in the child’s best interests.

These findings are required in temporary orders too. Not just final orders. If domestic violence is alleged at a temporary orders hearing the judge must make written findings at that stage as well. That is a direct change from prior Arizona law which did not require written findings in temporary orders.

Written findings are not just procedural formality. They are accountability. A judge who must write down exactly how the evidence was weighed and exactly why the order serves the child’s best interests cannot simply ignore the domestic violence evidence without analyzing it. And if the findings are inadequate or do not reflect the evidence, they create a record for appeal.

The court must apply a mandatory presumption against the abusive parent

When the court finds that a parent has committed domestic violence, the Alec and Lydia Act imposes a mandatory rebuttable presumption. That presumption says that awarding legal decision making or parenting time to the abusive parent is contrary to the child’s best interests.

Mandatory means the judge does not have discretion to skip it. The presumption applies. Period. The abusive parent starts from a position of no parenting time and no decision making rights. The only path forward for that parent is to overcome the presumption with evidence meeting the applicable legal standard.

This is different from the old law in two important ways. First, the old presumption applied only to legal decision making. Parenting time was a separate analysis where courts had much more discretion to award access even after a domestic violence finding. The new law brings parenting time inside the presumption. Second, the presumption is now expressly described as mandatory. Courts cannot treat it as optional or discretionary.

The court must apply the right standard of proof for each type of relief

The Alec and Lydia Act creates a two-tiered system for what the abusive parent must prove to receive any access to the child.

To obtain sole or joint legal decision making, or unsupervised parenting time, the abusive parent must overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. This is a demanding standard. It requires substantially more than a preponderance. It requires that the evidence make the claim highly probable, not just more likely than not.

To obtain even supervised parenting time, the abusive parent must overcome the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. That is a lower bar but it is still a real burden. Supervised parenting time is not a default middle ground that the court can award without the abusive parent earning it.

The practical effect is that if the abusive parent cannot meet the applicable standard the court cannot award any parenting time. Not supervised. Not unsupervised. Not any. The default position after a domestic violence finding under the new law is no parenting time at all until the presumption is rebutted.

The court must evaluate rebuttal evidence rigorously

When an abusive parent attempts to rebut the presumption the court is now required to consider a specific set of factors with a level of rigor that did not exist under the old law. The court must consider the severity and frequency of the domestic violence, including whether physical injury occurred, whether emotional trauma resulted, whether a firearm was used, whether strangulation occurred, and whether multiple forms of coercive control were present.

The court must consider the extent to which the abusive parent denied, minimized, or deflected responsibility for the domestic violence not just in a treatment program but in discovery, in the courtroom, and throughout the proceedings. A parent who completed a program but spent the litigation denying that abuse ever occurred has not demonstrated the insight required for rebuttal.

The court must consider whether the violence was so severe or so frequent that the passage of time alone is not a mitigating factor. Time passing is not the same as change occurring. The court must consider whether the child has imitated any of the abusive parent’s behaviors. Children who have witnessed or experienced domestic violence sometimes repeat those behaviors. That is evidence the court must now analyze directly.

The court cannot accept a certificate of completion as proof of rehabilitation

Under the old law, completing a batterer’s intervention program or an anger management course could be sufficient to rebut a domestic violence presumption. Show up, complete the hours, get the certificate, and come back to court.

The Alec and Lydia Act changes that. A certificate of completion alone is no longer proof of rehabilitation. The court may not treat it as such. For a treatment program to support rebuttal of the presumption the abusive parent must provide several things alongside the certificate. They must waive privilege and allow the court and the victim access to the treatment records. The program must have been relevant and proportionate to the actual domestic violence that occurred, not a generic anger management course when the conduct was coercive control and financial abuse. And the abusive parent must demonstrate genuine understanding of how their behavior harmed the child and the other parent.

Checking boxes after a class does not rebut the presumption anymore. Demonstrated insight, transparency, documented evidence and accountability are now legal requirements.

The court cannot automatically determine that domestic violence is “mutual”

Under the old law, a finding that both parents committed domestic violence meant the presumption did not apply to either of them. That provision could have been exploited. Abusive parents argued that any act of self-defense, any reactive response to abuse, any moment of conflict made the dv “mutual” and cancelled the entire protection the presumption provided. It is common for the victim of dv to react and defend but that does not make the victim an abuser.

The Alec and Lydia Act closes that path. The court cannot describe domestic violence as mutual unless the evidence establishes that both parents lacked justification to a similar degree and inflicted comparable harm. Self-defense is not mutual combat. A victim responding to an attack is not the same as an abuser initiating one. If one parent’s conduct was provocative, more serious, more frequent, or more harmful, the presumption applies against that parent regardless of whether the other parent also has some reaction or action of self-defense.

What the court can no longer consider:

The Alec and Lydia Act expressly prohibits the court from treating certain factors as relevant to the domestic violence analysis. These prohibitions exist because these factors were routinely used before to minimize the impact of domestic violence findings.

• The court cannot treat the child’s absence from the scene of domestic violence as a reason to discount the domestic violence or its effect on the child. Children do not have to witness abuse for abuse to harm them.
• The court cannot treat the child’s unawareness that domestic violence occurred as a mitigating factor. A child who was asleep when the abuse happened is not an unaffected child.
• The court cannot accept the child’s preference for maintaining or increasing contact with the abusive parent as relevant to the domestic violence analysis. Children love their parents, often even if they are abusive. That is not evidence that the abuse did not occur or that access is safe.

The court cannot order joint treatment with the victim

The Alec and Lydia Act expressly prohibits the court from ordering a victim whether a child or a parent to participate in any inpatient or outpatient treatment, counseling, or forensic assessment jointly with the perpetrating parent. This prohibition covers all modalities and all formats including virtual sessions and telephone sessions.

Reunification therapy, joint forensic evaluations, and shared treatment programs are all prohibited when domestic violence is present. The court cannot use these tools to force a victim into a therapeutic relationship with the person who harmed them.

What this means for you

If you are in a case right now where domestic violence has been alleged or found by a court, these are strict guidelines. They are legal requirements that courts must follow as of June 22, 2026. The court cannot skip the written findings. It cannot ignore the presumption. It cannot accept a certificate of completion and move on. It cannot label self-defense mutual combat. It cannot use your child’s love for the abusive parent against you and against their self-interest or safety.

We have practiced family law in Arizona for nearly twenty years. We have presented domestic violence evidence to courts in cases where the old law left too much to discretion and too many children and victims were unprotected. We have advocated for children in domestic violence cases for almost 2 decades. The Alec and Lydia Act codifies into the statute what we have always believed and always argued.

If you are wondering whether this law applies to your situation, or whether what happened to you qualifies as domestic violence under the new definition, or whether your current case is being handled correctly under the new requirements, that is exactly what a consultation with Tali is for. She handles every new client consultation personally. She will listen. She will tell you honestly where things stand and how the new law applies to you and your children.

Read next in this series: