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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103 (2026)

Purposes of title; application of title

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of this title are:

1. To promote strong families;

2. To promote strong family values.

B. It also is the declared public policy of this state and the general purpose of this title that absent evidence to the contrary, it is in a child's best interest:

1. To have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents.

2. To have both parents participate in decision-making about the child.

C. A court shall apply the provisions of this title in a manner that is consistent with this section.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 25-103(B). Subject to the results of Father’s hair follicle test, which was ordered at the February 10, 2017 hearing, Mother has not presented sufficient evidence to depart from the public policy to allow both parents “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing…”
Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “The outlines of that right are made clear under Arizona public policy and statutes, which direct that a child’s best interest includes “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents,” A.R.S. § 25-103(B), (C), and which protect that right…”
Terrell v. Torres, 438 P.3d 681 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “§ 25-324(A), the trial court has discretion to award a party’s reasonable attorney fees “after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken.”
Banales v. Smith, 26 P.3d 1190 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Keri objected to Daniel’s proffer of a proposed settlement agreement that the parties had not executed.”
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “352, 354 (1967) (“The final determination of custody in a divorce action is and must be determined by what the court considers to be in the best interest of the child. The wishes of the parents, of course, may and should be considered, but their happiness and their desires will…”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin, 382 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Section 25-103(B), A.R.S., provides: "It .”
Hustrulid v. Stakebake, 516 P.3d 18 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “For that reason, the statutory definition contemplates that joint legal decision-making cannot be awarded to a nonparent.”
Windschill v. Windschill, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0717-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. July 25, 2023). · cites it 16× “Accordingly, the court is not required to award Father the maximum parenting time possible, “particularly when the [parents] live in different states or are separated by a considerable distance,” if it would not be in the children’s best interests. See Woyton v. Ward (Woyton I),…”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin, 401 P.3d 492 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 4× “The legislature also mandated that Arizona courts “shall apply the provisions of [Title 25] in a manner that is consistent with [§ 25-103].” Id. at § 25-103(C). When a man is presumed to be the father of a child born during the marriage, and that presumption is not rebutted, he…”
Douros v. Douros, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0198-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2021). · cites it 6× “Because neither party developed their argument, we exercise our discretion to deny 1 Nor did the superior court abuse its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to amend or reconsider, which mostly reiterated his earlier arguments.”
Gish v. Greyson, 514 P.3d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “The Court has good reason to believe that she will continue to do so if she has the ability to do so.”
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez, 426 P.3d 1208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “[t]o have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents." A.R.S. § 25-103(A)(1) & (B)(1).”
Show all 42 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(A): 2 cases
Hustrulid v. Stakebake, 516 P.3d 18 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “For that reason, the statutory definition contemplates that joint legal decision-making cannot be awarded to a nonparent.”
Missman v. Peterson, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0323-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 9, 2017).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(A)(1): 3 cases
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin, 401 P.3d 492 (Ariz. 2017). “The legislature also mandated that Arizona courts “shall apply the provisions of [Title 25] in a manner that is consistent with [§ 25-103].” Id. at § 25-103(C). When a man is presumed to be the father of a child born during the marriage, and that presumption is not rebutted, he…”
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez, 426 P.3d 1208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “[t]o have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents." A.R.S. § 25-103(A)(1) & (B)(1).”
Albert L. v. Dcs, B.T., No. 1 CA-JV 21-0126 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2022).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(B): 19 cases
Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “The outlines of that right are made clear under Arizona public policy and statutes, which direct that a child’s best interest includes “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents,” A.R.S. § 25-103(B), (C), and which protect that right…”
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “” A.R.S. § 25-103(B). Subject to the results of Father’s hair follicle test, which was ordered at the February 10, 2017 hearing, Mother has not presented sufficient evidence to depart from the public policy to allow both parents “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing…”
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “352, 354 (1967) (“The final determination of custody in a divorce action is and must be determined by what the court considers to be in the best interest of the child. The wishes of the parents, of course, may and should be considered, but their happiness and their desires will…”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin, 382 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Section 25-103(B), A.R.S., provides: "It .”
Windschill v. Windschill, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0717-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. July 25, 2023). “Accordingly, the court is not required to award Father the maximum parenting time possible, “particularly when the [parents] live in different states or are separated by a considerable distance,” if it would not be in the children’s best interests. See Woyton v. Ward (Woyton I),…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(B)(1): 17 cases
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “” A.R.S. § 25-103(B). Subject to the results of Father’s hair follicle test, which was ordered at the February 10, 2017 hearing, Mother has not presented sufficient evidence to depart from the public policy to allow both parents “substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing…”
Gish v. Greyson, 514 P.3d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “The Court has good reason to believe that she will continue to do so if she has the ability to do so.”
In re the Marriage of Morris & Mandel, 529 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Windschill v. Windschill, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0717-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. July 25, 2023). “Accordingly, the court is not required to award Father the maximum parenting time possible, “particularly when the [parents] live in different states or are separated by a considerable distance,” if it would not be in the children’s best interests. See Woyton v. Ward (Woyton I),…”
Douros v. Douros, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0198-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2021). “Because neither party developed their argument, we exercise our discretion to deny 1 Nor did the superior court abuse its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to amend or reconsider, which mostly reiterated his earlier arguments.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(B)(2): 2 cases
Osman v. Hassoun, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0245-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2023).
Campbell v. Newell, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0042-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2024).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(C): 1 case
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin, 401 P.3d 492 (Ariz. 2017). “The legislature also mandated that Arizona courts “shall apply the provisions of [Title 25] in a manner that is consistent with [§ 25-103].” Id. at § 25-103(C). When a man is presumed to be the father of a child born during the marriage, and that presumption is not rebutted, he…”
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.