Insight

Domestic Violence and Joint Legal Decision-Making in Arizona

A recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals [i] clarifies how domestic violence may impact which parent can make decisions relating to children.

Mervyn T. Braude

Mervyn T. Braude

September 20, 2023 02:32 PM

Domestic violence allegations are unfortunately part of many divorce proceedings. A recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals [i] clarifies how domestic violence may impact which parent can make decisions relating to children. In Arizona, parents may joint legal decision-making authority or it could be awarded solely to one parent. Legal decision-making is defined as the “legal right and responsibility to make all non-emergency legal decisions for a child including those of education, health care, religious training and personal care decisions”.

Currently, legal decision-making for children and the issue of domestic violence is addressed in several Arizona statutes:

  1. The law [ii] requires the court to consider whether there has been domestic violence or child abuse [iii]. If the court determines domestic violence has occurred, it must then determine whether the domestic violence was “significant” or if there is a “significant history of domestic violence”. If the Family Law Court finds either, the law precludes joint legal decision-making. The non-abusing parent must be awarded sole decision-making authority.
  2. If the domestic violence is not “significant” [iv] , the law imposes a rebuttable presumption that the perpetrator of the domestic violence should not be awarded sole or joint legal decision-making authority.
  3. It is important to note that “significant” is not defined by Arizona laws. However, the Family Law Court has indicated that “significant” is the product of three factors – the seriousness of the particular incident, the frequency or pervasiveness of the domestic violence, and the passage of time and its impact.
  4. When making decisions concerning parenting time and legal decision-making authority, the Court is required to make specific findings supporting its decisions.

In the recent case, the Father assaulted the Mother and her daughter from a previous relationship in 2013. However, the Mother did not cooperate with the prosecution and the charges were dismissed. In 2016, they married. Shortly thereafter they separated and in 2017, the Mother obtained an Order of Protection based upon the Father’s stalking and harassing behavior. Father violated the Order of Protection by entering Mother’s residence and taking her cellphone after an argument.

Following their divorce trial, the Court concluded that the domestic violence was not “significant” and awarded Father joint legal decision-making authority. The Mother appealed the decision.

In reviewing their case, the Arizona Court of Appeals outlined the necessary steps when considering the issue of joint legal decision-making and domestic violence.

In determining the best interests of the child, the Court must determine whether domestic violence or child abuse has occurred. If no domestic violence or child abuse has occurred, that is the end of the analysis and it is not a factor.

If domestic violence was significant or if there has been a significant history of domestic violence, the Court cannot award joint legal decision-making authority.

If the Court finds that the domestic violence was not significant or finds that there has not been a significant history of domestic violence, then the rebuttable presumption must be addressed. It is contrary to the best interests of the child to award sole or joint legal decision-making authority to the perpetrator of the domestic violence. The Court shall consider the safety and well-being of the child and of the victim of the act of domestic violence to be of primary importance. Joint legal decision-making can only be awarded in the perpetrator of violence has rebutted the presumption. Further, the Court must make specific findings supporting its conclusion.

Perhaps the Court of Appeals wasted an opportunity to comment on the significance of the domestic violence. However, they clarified the importance of the rebuttable presumption arising from any act of domestic violence, namely, that is it is contrary to the best interests of a child to award sole or joint legal decision-making authority to the perpetrator of domestic violence.

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED BY ABC15 Sonoran Living

[i] Deluna v. Petitto, — P.3d —, 2019 WL 4197236 (App.2019)

[ii] A.R.S. § 25-403.03(A)

[iii] A.R.S. § 25-403.03

[iv] A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D)

Trending Articles

Introducing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore


by Jennifer Verta

This year’s awards reflect the strength of the Best Lawyers network and its role in elevating legal talent worldwide.

2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore

Revealing the 2026 Best Lawyers Awards in Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria


by Jamilla Tabbara

These honors underscore the reach of the Best Lawyers network and its focus on top legal talent.

map of Germany, France, Switzerland and Austria

Effective Communication: A Conversation with Jefferson Fisher


by Jamilla Tabbara

The power of effective communication beyond the law.

 Image of Jefferson Fisher and Phillip Greer engaged in a conversation about effective communication

The 2025 Legal Outlook Survey Results Are In


by Jennifer Verta

Discover what Best Lawyers honorees see ahead for the legal industry.

Person standing at a crossroads with multiple intersecting paths and a signpost.

The Best Lawyers Network: Global Recognition with Long-term Value


by Jamilla Tabbara

Learn how Best Lawyers' peer-review process helps recognized lawyers attract more clients and referral opportunities.

Lawyers networking

Jefferson Fisher: The Secrets to Influential Legal Marketing


by Jennifer Verta

How lawyers can apply Jefferson Fisher’s communication and marketing strategies to build trust, attract clients and grow their practice.

Portrait of Jefferson Fisher a legal marketing expert

A Guide to Workers' Compensation Law for 2025 and Beyond


by Bryan Driscoll

A woman with a laptop screen reflected in her glasses

Is Your Law Firm’s Website Driving Clients Away?


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key website issues that may be affecting client engagement and retention.

Phone displaying 'This site cannot be reached' message

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends in Texas, Utah, Georgia and SC


by Bryan Driscoll

A fresh wave of medical malpractice reform is reshaping the law.

Medical Malpractice Reform Trends hed

Why Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk Want to 'Delete All IP Law'


by Bryan Driscoll

This Isn’t Just a Debate Over How to Pay Creators. It’s a Direct Challenge to Legal Infrastructure.

Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey standing together Infront of the X logo

Best Lawyers Launches CMO Advisory Board


by Jamilla Tabbara

Strategic counsel from legal marketing’s most experienced voices.

Group photo of Best Lawyers CMO Advisory Board members

As Fla. Pushes to Repeal Controversial 'Free Kill' Law, DeSantis Signals Veto


by Bryan Driscoll

The fight to transform state accountability standards may be in trouble

free kill law hed

Changes in California Employment Law for 2025


by Laurie Villanueva

What employers need to know to ensure compliance in the coming year and beyond

A pair of hands holding a checklist featuring a generic profile picture and the state of California

Key Issues to Tackle on Law Firm Landing Pages


by Jamilla Tabbara

Identify key issues on law firm landing pages to improve client engagement and conversion.

Laptop showing law firm landing page analytics

New Employment Law Recognizes Extraordinary Stress Is Everyday Reality for NY Lawyers


by Bryan Driscoll

A stressed woman has her head resting on her hands above a laptop

Best Lawyers Introduces Smithy AI


by Jamilla Tabbara

Transforming legal content creation for attorneys and firms.

Start using Smithy AI, a content tool by Best Lawyers