A. A person commits access interference if, knowing or having reason to know that the person has no legal right to do so, the person knowingly engages in a pattern of behavior that prevents, obstructs or frustrates the access rights of a person who is entitled to access to a child pursuant to a court order.
B. If the child is removed from this state, access interference is a class 5 felony. Otherwise access interference is a class 2 misdemeanor.
C. The enforcement of this section is not limited by the availability of other remedies for access interference.
D. For the purposes of this section "access order" means a court order that is issued pursuant to title 25 and that allows a person to have direct access to a child or incompetent person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case:
Application of Kirk, 431 P.2d 678 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
Application of Kirk, 431 P.2d 678 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 13-1305 ; 31 Am.Jur.2d, Extradition § 20, page 937.”
Rogers v. Boies, 478 P.2d 92 (Ariz. 1970).
· cites it 2× “There was evidence presented to the lower court which has not been made available to this Court by way of transcript of the proceedings or testimony. Accordingly, we must assume that the evidence was sufficient to support the lower court’s judgment.”
State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Dugger, 497 P.2d 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972).
“§ 13-1305 provides just what the requisition papers must show, and reads r “A warrant of extradition shall not be issued unless the documents presented by the executive authority making the demand show that: “1.”
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to D.A. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 6× “¶39 In her briefing, Mother argues that the juvenile court “stated interference according to A.R.S. § 13-1305 yet the record does not reflect such[.”
State ex rel. Babbitt v. Kinman, 550 P.2d 1108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 2× “The properly authenticated papers include the information charging appellee with bogus check, amended information alleging a pri- or conviction, warrant for arrest, judgment and sentence, conditions of probation, and the application for revocation of suspended sentence.”
Boies v. Anderson, 440 P.2d 324 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 2× “In support of the petition it was alleged that the Governor’s Warrant on Extradition was defective in that it was not based upon the necessary papers required by A.R.S. § 13-1305. At the habeas corpus hearing the appellee testified that he had purchased two cashiers checks, one…”
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.