Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031 (2026)

Initial child custody jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

25-1031. Initial child custody jurisdiction

A. Except as otherwise provided in section 25-1034, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if any of the following is true:

1. This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.

2. A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 25-1037 or 25-1038 and both of the following are true:

(a) The child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence.

(b) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships.

3. All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or 2 have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under section 25-1037 or 25-1038.

4. A court of any other state would not have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph 1, 2 or 3.

B. Subsection A of this section is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.

C. Physical presence of or personal jurisdiction over a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 51 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 48× “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “See A.R.S. § 25-1031(A)(l-4) (paragraphs 2, 3, or 4 apply only if a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph 1, which defines parameters of home state jurisdiction, or if a home state court abdicates its jurisdiction to a more *265 appropriate state).”

Mangan v. Mangan, 258 P.3d 164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “Except as [inapplicable here], a court of this State that has made a child custody determination consistent with § 25-1031 .”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Grant, 307 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “Consequently, though Texas was the children’s home state while they were living in Japan pursuant to AR.”

Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 7× “§ 25-1033(1), Aizona would have jurisdiction to grant severance in this case only if the California court determined that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, A.”

Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “’s home state when the proceedings began, see § 25-1031, it had made a custody determination, and Mother Goose, the agency with legal custody of E.”

Willie G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 119 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to § 25-1031(A)(4), Arizona also has jurisdiction if no other state would have jurisdiction under any of the alternative criteria specified in § 25-1031(A)(l), (2), or (3).”

Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 25-1031. We are not persuaded that, under the circumstances of this case, Arizona lost its home-state status through Moran’s unauthorized — and arguably criminal — conduct in removing CJ from the state.”

Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 25-1031(0 (“Physical presence or personal jurisdiction over a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody decision.”

Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “] § 25-1031 [(A)(1) or (2)]” and either (1) the out-of-state court decided that it does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that this court is a more convenient forum, or (2) that the child and parents are no longer residing in the state that issued the decree.”

H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 203 P.3d 943 (Utah 2009). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to ARS. § 25-1031, this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine custody at this time.”

Persons Coming Under the Juv. Court Law. L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Child. v. Brittney M. (In re Los), 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “(b) ["[s]ubdivision (a) [of this section] is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state"]; Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-1031, subd. (B) [same]; see In re A.”

Show all 51 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(0) — 1 case

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A) — 14 cases

Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 25-1031(A)(l-4) (paragraphs 2, 3, or 4 apply only if a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph 1, which defines parameters of home state jurisdiction, or if a home state court abdicates its jurisdiction to a more *265 appropriate state).”

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Grant, 307 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Consequently, though Texas was the children’s home state while they were living in Japan pursuant to AR.”

H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 203 P.3d 943 (Utah 2009). “Pursuant to ARS. § 25-1031, this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine custody at this time.”

In Re the Marriage of Margain & Ruiz-Bours, 372 P.3d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(1) — 27 cases

Mangan v. Mangan, 258 P.3d 164 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “Except as [inapplicable here], a court of this State that has made a child custody determination consistent with § 25-1031 .”

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 25-1033(1), Aizona would have jurisdiction to grant severance in this case only if the California court determined that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, A.”

Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “’s home state when the proceedings began, see § 25-1031, it had made a custody determination, and Mother Goose, the agency with legal custody of E.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(2) — 10 cases

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Grant, 307 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Consequently, though Texas was the children’s home state while they were living in Japan pursuant to AR.”

Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “See A.R.S. § 25-1031(0 (“Physical presence or personal jurisdiction over a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody decision.”

Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(2)(a) — 3 cases

Anthony v. Anthony (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(2)(b) — 1 case

Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(3) — 5 cases

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

Fateama M. v. Dcs, J.W. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).

Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(4) — 6 cases

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Willie G. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 119 P.3d 1034 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Pursuant to § 25-1031(A)(4), Arizona also has jurisdiction if no other state would have jurisdiction under any of the alternative criteria specified in § 25-1031(A)(l), (2), or (3).”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Grant, 307 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Consequently, though Texas was the children’s home state while they were living in Japan pursuant to AR.”

Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(A)(l) — 5 cases

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Grant, 307 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Consequently, though Texas was the children’s home state while they were living in Japan pursuant to AR.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(B) — 3 cases

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “A.R.S. § 25-1031 provides in full as follows: A.”

Waltenburg v. Waltenburg, 270 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App. 2008).

Tracy D. , Tarah D. v. Dcs, T.D. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1031(C) — 2 cases

Williams v. Haddad (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

In Re the Marriage of Morris & Mandel, 529 P.3d 94 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).

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.