Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 25
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1001 (2026)

Short title

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

25-1001. Short title

This chapter may be cited as the uniform child custody jurisdiction and enforcement act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 25-1001 through 25-1067. ¶11 In the meantime, Frank had seen a photograph of E.”
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Mother argues a minor child less than six months old, who has not lived exclusively in one state, has no “home state” pursuant to UCCJEA.”
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “11 A.R.S. §§ 25-1001 to — 1067. ¶ 30 The UCCJEA drafters dealt specifically with the conflict created by differing jurisdictions taking contrary views of the four bases of jurisdiction.”
Willie G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 119 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Bonnie argues that, because Nykole was not the subject of a pending dependency action or custody order when she left the state, Arizona lacked jurisdiction over her once she was physically outside Arizona.”
Mangan v. Mangan, 258 P.3d 164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “¶ 17 In 2001, Arizona adopted the UCCJEA, see AR.S. §§ 25-1001 to -1067 (2007), a uniform statute adopted by the majority of states in an effort to resolve ambiguity and create consistency in interstate child custody jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings.”
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “DISCUSSION ¶ 6 Father contends that the family court abused its jurisdiction by modifying custody in violation of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UC-CJEA”).”
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 25-1001 through 25-1067. 3 A trial court’s jurisdiction is a matter of law that we review de novo.”
Jared P. v. Glade T., 209 P.3d 157 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 25-1001 to -1067 (2007 and Supp.”
In Re the Marriage of Margain & Ruiz-Bours, 372 P.3d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” The court also noted it would limit the scope of the trial to determining “whether Mexico exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act” (UCCJEA), AR.S. §§ 25-1001 through 25-1067. ¶ 10 A three-day trial…”
Theresa L. v. State, Dept. of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 353 P.3d 831 (Alaska 2015). “910; Ariz.Rev.Stat §§ 25-1001 to -1067 (2015).”
David S. v. Audilio S., 32 P.3d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “§§ 25-431 through 25-454 have since been renumbered as A.R.S. §§ 25-1001 through 25-1067. 2000 Ariz.”
In Re Paternity of RAF, 766 N.E.2d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Code §§ 31-17-3-1 to -25; Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-1001 to -1067 (2001).”
Show all 38 citing cases →
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.