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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1033 (2026)

Jurisdiction to modify determination

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

25-1033. Jurisdiction to modify determination

Except as otherwise provided in section 25-1034, a court of this state shall not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 25-1031, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 and either of the following is true:

1. The court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under section 25-1032 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 25-1037.

2. A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child's parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.  

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “Unless a statutory exception applies, courts in other states are prohibited from modifying an initial child custody order entered by a court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 25-1033, the family court was required to find that it was making the first custody determination or that either the North Carolina court had relinquished exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that Mother, Father, and the child had all moved from North Carolina.”
Troy W. v. Dcs, T.W. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 10× “Thus, the juvenile court could not make a custody determination modifying the Alaska ruling unless A.R.S. § 25-1033 applied: [The juvenile court] has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 25-1031, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 and either of the following is…”
Prouty v. Hughes, 433 P.3d 1196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 9× “¶15 By contrast, the jurisdictional provision at issue here is the UCCJEA, A.R.S. § 25-1033, not the UIFSA. Unlike the UIFSA, the UCCJEA does not require that a foreign custody order be registered before it may be modified.”
Jesse B. v. Dcs, C.B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 25-1033; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.”
Monique B./donald B. v. Hon duncan/dcs, 429 P.3d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 25-1033; accord Ala. Code § 30 -3B-203.”
Michelle M. v. Loren C., R.H. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “§ 25-1033, however, there are circumstances in which an Arizona court may modify an initial custody determination issued by a court of another state: [A] court of this state shall not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this…”
Atkinson v. McIndoo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “An Arizona court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is in Arizona and “has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child .”
Hope v. Hope (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “¶21 In essence, A.R.S. § 25-1033 provides that an Arizona family court does not have jurisdiction to modify a foreign court’s custody order unless the foreign court makes a determination that (1) it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the case, or (2) the child…”
Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “§ 25-1031(A)(2) because there was no home state when DCS filed the dependency petition or within six months prior to the filing, the children and parents had a significant connection with Arizona, and there was substantial evidence regarding the children’s welfare in Arizona.”
Greenham v. Hope (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “On June 9, 2015, and after conferring with the South Carolina court, see A.R.S. § 25-1033 (2018), the superior court entered an order finding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction over both child custody and child support and personal jurisdiction over both Mother and Father.”
Kristina J. v. Dcs, K.H. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 25-1033. 3 KRISTINA J. v. DCS, K.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1033(1) — 5 cases
Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Unless a statutory exception applies, courts in other states are prohibited from modifying an initial child custody order entered by a court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Jesse B. v. Dcs, C.B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “A.R.S. § 25-1033; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.”
Troy W. v. Dcs, T.W. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “Thus, the juvenile court could not make a custody determination modifying the Alaska ruling unless A.R.S. § 25-1033 applied: [The juvenile court] has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 25-1031, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 and either of the following is…”
Nathan B. v. Lana T., J.B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Michelle M. v. Loren C., R.H. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 25-1033, however, there are circumstances in which an Arizona court may modify an initial custody determination issued by a court of another state: [A] court of this state shall not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1033(2) — 3 cases
Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Unless a statutory exception applies, courts in other states are prohibited from modifying an initial child custody order entered by a court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
Jesse B. v. Dcs, C.B. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “A.R.S. § 25-1033; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 722.”
Michelle M. v. Loren C., R.H. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 25-1033, however, there are circumstances in which an Arizona court may modify an initial custody determination issued by a court of another state: [A] court of this state shall not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1033(A) — 1 case
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 25-1033, the family court was required to find that it was making the first custody determination or that either the North Carolina court had relinquished exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that Mother, Father, and the child had all moved from North Carolina.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1033(A)(1) — 1 case
Atkinson v. McIndoo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “An Arizona court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is in Arizona and “has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child .”
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.