Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2453 (2026)

Factors; best interests of minor; burden of proof; emancipation orders; filing requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-2453. Factors; best interests of minor; burden of proof; emancipation orders; filing requirements

A. The court shall determine emancipation based on the best interests of the minor and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

1. The potential risks and consequences of emancipation and to what degree the minor understands these risks and consequences.

2. The wishes of the minor.

3. The opinions and recommendations of the minor's parent or legal guardian.

4. The financial resources of the minor, including the minor's employment history.

5. The minor's ability to be financially self-sufficient.

6. The minor's level of education and the minor's success in school.

7. Whether the minor has a criminal record.

8. Whether the minor has obtained an offer of employment.

B. The minor has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

C. The court shall file an emancipation order with the clerk of the court and issue a copy of the order to the minor and the department of economic security or its agent, if the minor is a child in a title IV-D case.

D. An emancipation order issued by a court pursuant to this article:

1. Is conclusive evidence that the minor is emancipated.

2. Terminates a dependency action as to the minor by operation of law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Smith v. Saxon, 918 P.2d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Saxon, 918 P.2d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 8× “The legislature determined that the prevailing party in modification actions may appropriately be awarded attorney's fees. A.R.S. § 12-2453(D). As discussed above, I believe Smith is the prevailing party here.”
Martin v. Martin, 893 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “2d 1044 (1976), and A.R.S. § 12-2453(0 (1994) 4 , the State argues that the judgment is void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order retroactively modifying the original support order.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Dodd, 888 P.2d 1370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “Further, the state filed the order of assignment which the trial court revoked, and this revocation is the subject of the present appeal. We therefore address the merits of this appeal.”
Burnette v. Bender, 908 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “True, the prevailing party factor is relevant to section 12-2453(D) (Supp.1995) (“The order of modification or revocation [of child support] may include an award of attorney’s fees and court costs to the prevailing party.”
Marriage of Rutherford v. Babcock, 814 P.2d 361 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 8× “The statute of limitations for enforcement of child support is set forth as A.R.S. § 12-2453. Prior to the 1983 amendment, the statute required enforcement within two years of the termination of the duty to support: o The right of a parent .”
Matter of Est. of Patterson, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2453(E). The death of the spouse ordered to pay support does not terminate the obligation, which may then be pursued as a creditor's claim against the estate, having priority equal to claims provided for in A.”
Cummings v. Cummings, 897 P.2d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “section 12-2453(C), which allows the court to award attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party in a proceeding to modify or revoke a support award, and section 25-324, which authorizes the award of attorneys' fees and costs in a dissolution or post-dissolution proceeding.”
Westberry v. Reynolds, 653 P.2d 379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “The father takes note of the fact that A.R.S. § 12-2453(C), which was amended in 1979, now sets the time limitations on the collection of delinquent child support payments.”
State v. Jackson, 908 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “, A.R.S. §§ 6-153(C), 6-943(H), 6-975(B), 6-1112(C) (1989 and Supp.”
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 899 P.2d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Termination of Child Support On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in finding a waiver of child support because the evidence does not support a finding of waiver, and Mother had no authority to waive child support arrearages by asking Father to sign an adoption…”
Marriage of Murren v. Murren, 955 P.2d 973 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “There is no requirement to renew such judgments and orders during the minority of the children____ Such actions are limited only as required by § 12-2453, subsection E.” A.R.S. § 12-155KD) (1994) 2 .”
Groves v. Sorce, 780 P.2d 452 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “This limitation does not apply to judgments and orders for the support of a minor or for those children whose support is extended beyond the age of emancipation pursuant to § 12-2451, subsection A or § 25-320, subsection B. There is no requirement to renew such judgments and…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2453(0) — 1 case
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 899 P.2d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Termination of Child Support On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in finding a waiver of child support because the evidence does not support a finding of waiver, and Mother had no authority to waive child support arrearages by asking Father to sign an adoption…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2453(C) — 5 cases
Cummings v. Cummings, 897 P.2d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 12-2453(C), which allows the court to award attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party in a proceeding to modify or revoke a support award, and section 25-324, which authorizes the award of attorneys' fees and costs in a dissolution or post-dissolution proceeding.”
Martin v. Martin, 893 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “2d 1044 (1976), and A.R.S. § 12-2453(0 (1994) 4 , the State argues that the judgment is void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order retroactively modifying the original support order.”
Westberry v. Reynolds, 653 P.2d 379 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The father takes note of the fact that A.R.S. § 12-2453(C), which was amended in 1979, now sets the time limitations on the collection of delinquent child support payments.”
Marriage of Rutherford v. Babcock, 814 P.2d 361 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “The statute of limitations for enforcement of child support is set forth as A.R.S. § 12-2453. Prior to the 1983 amendment, the statute required enforcement within two years of the termination of the duty to support: o The right of a parent .”
Schnepp v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 899 P.2d 185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Termination of Child Support On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in finding a waiver of child support because the evidence does not support a finding of waiver, and Mother had no authority to waive child support arrearages by asking Father to sign an adoption…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2453(D) — 3 cases
Smith v. Saxon, 918 P.2d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “The legislature determined that the prevailing party in modification actions may appropriately be awarded attorney's fees. A.R.S. § 12-2453(D). As discussed above, I believe Smith is the prevailing party here.”
Burnette v. Bender, 908 P.2d 1086 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “True, the prevailing party factor is relevant to section 12-2453(D) (Supp.1995) (“The order of modification or revocation [of child support] may include an award of attorney’s fees and court costs to the prevailing party.”
In Re the Marriage of Ramirez, 840 P.2d 311 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2453(E) — 4 cases
Matter of Est. of Patterson, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “A.R.S. § 12-2453(E). The death of the spouse ordered to pay support does not terminate the obligation, which may then be pursued as a creditor's claim against the estate, having priority equal to claims provided for in A.”
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Dodd, 888 P.2d 1370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “Further, the state filed the order of assignment which the trial court revoked, and this revocation is the subject of the present appeal. We therefore address the merits of this appeal.”
Marriage of Murren v. Murren, 955 P.2d 973 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “There is no requirement to renew such judgments and orders during the minority of the children____ Such actions are limited only as required by § 12-2453, subsection E.” A.R.S. § 12-155KD) (1994) 2 .”
Shaw v. Quaintance, 805 P.2d 401 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2453(F) — 2 cases
State v. Jackson, 908 P.2d 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “, A.R.S. §§ 6-153(C), 6-943(H), 6-975(B), 6-1112(C) (1989 and Supp.”
Ziegelbauer v. Ziegelbauer, 942 P.2d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.