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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103 (2026)

Purposes of title; application of title

✓ current as of May 2026
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× “) 11 We note that the trial court also found that awarding Torres the embryos to achieve pregnancy was against public policy because “litigation” over a potential child was “inherent” and would be contrary to A.R.S. § 25-103 (declaring the public policy of this state and the…”
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× “02 (“Consistent with the child’s best interests .”
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× “192 § 23 (enacting § 25-103). We see no reason to depart from Thomas.”
Windschill v. Windschill (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 16× “Maximizing parenting time is a priority, but the best interests of the children is paramount under A.R.S. §§ 25-103, 25-403.02, and 25-408. Accordingly, the court is not required to award Father the maximum parenting time possible, “particularly when the [parents] live in…”
Douros v. Douros (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 25-103(B).1 CONCLUSION ¶12 We affirm.”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin (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…”
Durbin v. Keller (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “” See A.R.S. § 25-103(B) (it is the state’s public policy that “absent evidence to the contrary, it is in a child’s best interest .”
Gonzales v. Vargas (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 25-103(B). No evidence was presented that therapeutic efforts had completely failed or that additional efforts would be futile.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(A) — 2 cases
Hustrulid v. Stakebake, 516 P.3d 18 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “192 § 23 (enacting § 25-103). We see no reason to depart from Thomas.”
Missman v. Peterson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(A)(1) — 3 cases
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin (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…”
Albert L. v. Dcs, B.T. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez, 426 P.3d 1208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— 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). “02 (“Consistent with the child’s best interests .”
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 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “Maximizing parenting time is a priority, but the best interests of the children is paramount under A.R.S. §§ 25-103, 25-403.02, and 25-408. Accordingly, the court is not required to award Father the maximum parenting time possible, “particularly when the [parents] live in…”
— 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…”
Windschill v. Windschill (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “Maximizing parenting time is a priority, but the best interests of the children is paramount under A.R.S. §§ 25-103, 25-403.02, and 25-408. Accordingly, the court is not required to award Father the maximum parenting time possible, “particularly when the [parents] live in…”
Douros v. Douros (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “See A.R.S. § 25-103(B).1 CONCLUSION ¶12 We affirm.”
Crewse v. Crewse (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
Kitchen v. Fleming, Sr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(B)(2) — 2 cases
Osman v. Hassoun (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Campbell v. Newell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-103(C) — 1 case
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Hon. jones/suzan McLaughlin (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.