25-1034. Temporary emergency jurisdiction
A. A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
B. If there is no previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this chapter and a child custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033, a child custody determination made under this section remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033. If a child custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033, a child custody determination made under this section becomes a final determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the child.
C. If there is a previous child custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this chapter or a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033, any order issued by a court of this state under this section must specify in the order a period that the court considers adequate to allow the person seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033. The order issued in this state remains in effect until an order is obtained from the other state within the period specified or the period expires.
D. A court of this state that has been asked to make a child custody determination under this section, on being informed that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been made by, a court of a state having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033, shall immediately communicate with the other court. A court of this state that exercises jurisdiction pursuant to section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033, on being informed that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child custody determination has been made by, a court of another state under a statute similar to this section, shall immediately communicate with the court of that state to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case:
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 9× “Moreover, there is no indication in the record that North Carolina has relinquished its continuing jurisdiction or that Father has moved from North Carolina.”
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 25-1034, enumerated in subsection A, pertains to temporary emergency jurisdiction, which is not at issue in this case.”
Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 25-1034. This exception has no application in this case.”
Madison C. v. Hon. marwil/dcs, 530 P.3d 622 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 24× “A.R.S. § 25-1034. ¶20 Section 25-1034(A) provides the basis for jurisdiction over a child whose home state is not Arizona in cases where “the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child…”
Ericka H., Terrance D. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 10× “DCS asserted “Arizona has temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1034” and “it is necessary to protect [each] child as he/she is threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”
Atkinson v. McIndoo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 12× “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 .”
Tammy P. v. Dcs, E.P. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 25-1034(A). When no child custody proceeding has been brought in the child’s “home state,” a child custody determination made under temporary emergency jurisdiction “becomes a final determination, if it so provides” and, in that case, Arizona then “becomes the home…”
Williams v. Haddad (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “That statute directs that when a court has issued temporary emergency orders concerning a child who is present in the state, and no custody proceeding is commenced in a court of a state that has jurisdiction under § 25-1031, the temporary order becomes a final determination “if…”
Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “DCS Decision of the Court DCS maintained that Arizona had temporary emergency jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 25-1034(A) and there were no orders entitled to enforcement nor custody proceedings in any other state at the time of removal.”
Jesse M. v. Dcs, G.S. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “1 ¶4 The superior court originally exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the dependency proceedings under A.R.S. § 25-1034, Arizona’s version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1034(0) — 1 case
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Moreover, there is no indication in the record that North Carolina has relinquished its continuing jurisdiction or that Father has moved from North Carolina.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1034(A) — 7 cases
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Moreover, there is no indication in the record that North Carolina has relinquished its continuing jurisdiction or that Father has moved from North Carolina.”
Madison C. v. Hon. marwil/dcs, 530 P.3d 622 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“A.R.S. § 25-1034. ¶20 Section 25-1034(A) provides the basis for jurisdiction over a child whose home state is not Arizona in cases where “the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child…”
Tammy P. v. Dcs, E.P. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 25-1034(A). When no child custody proceeding has been brought in the child’s “home state,” a child custody determination made under temporary emergency jurisdiction “becomes a final determination, if it so provides” and, in that case, Arizona then “becomes the home…”
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 .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1034(B) — 5 cases
Williams v. Haddad (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“That statute directs that when a court has issued temporary emergency orders concerning a child who is present in the state, and no custody proceeding is commenced in a court of a state that has jurisdiction under § 25-1031, the temporary order becomes a final determination “if…”
Joslin G. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“DCS Decision of the Court DCS maintained that Arizona had temporary emergency jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 25-1034(A) and there were no orders entitled to enforcement nor custody proceedings in any other state at the time of removal.”
Tammy P. v. Dcs, E.P. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“A.R.S. § 25-1034(A). When no child custody proceeding has been brought in the child’s “home state,” a child custody determination made under temporary emergency jurisdiction “becomes a final determination, if it so provides” and, in that case, Arizona then “becomes the home…”
Ericka H., Terrance D. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“DCS asserted “Arizona has temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1034” and “it is necessary to protect [each] child as he/she is threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”
Madison C. v. Hon. marwil/dcs, 530 P.3d 622 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“A.R.S. § 25-1034. ¶20 Section 25-1034(A) provides the basis for jurisdiction over a child whose home state is not Arizona in cases where “the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1034(C) — 2 cases
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 .”
Ericka H., Terrance D. v. Dcs (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“DCS asserted “Arizona has temporary emergency jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1034” and “it is necessary to protect [each] child as he/she is threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1034(D) — 2 cases
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“Moreover, there is no indication in the record that North Carolina has relinquished its continuing jurisdiction or that Father has moved from North Carolina.”
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.