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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1201 (2026)

Short title

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

25-1201. Short title

This chapter may be cited as the uniform interstate family support act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2022 · leading case: Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 390 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marriage of Henderson v. Henderson, 390 P.3d 1226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to the Arizona Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), A.R.S. §§ 25-1201 to 25-1362, Suzanne sought registration and enforcement of the 2009 Canadian order in Pima County.”
Marriage of McHale v. McHale, 109 P.3d 89 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “In May 2004, the Governor approved a conditional bill that will repeal Arizona’s current version of UIFSA (1996), and renumber and replace it with UIFSA (2001) in A.R.S. §§ 25-1201 to -1342. 2004 Ariz. Sess.”
Glover v. Glover, 289 P.3d 12 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “¶ 8 Mother argues the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to reduce Father’s child support obligation because the Massachusetts judgment was never registered in Arizona pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (2001) (“UIFSA”), which Arizona has…”
ades/taylor v. Pandola, 382 P.3d 101 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “¶36 Pursuant to Arizona’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), A.R.S. §§ 25-1201 to -1362, “[a] nonregistering party seeking to contest the validity or enforcement of a registered support order in this state shall request a hearing,” A.”
Balazic v. Balazic, 334 P.3d 771 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “”) §§ 25-1201 to -1342, 1 deprive Arizona courts of subject matter jurisdiction to modify a child support order from another state, even absent a timely objection to the registration deficiencies.”
Marinello v. Glover (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶3 Mother appealed, and we held the family court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to modify a Massachusetts child support order that was not registered in Arizona.”
Kennedy v. Wybenga (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “¶8 Father contends that California lacked jurisdiction and improperly registered the child support order for modification in May 2016 because he was at all times an Arizona resident; thus, Arizona never lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over child support issues according…”
Prouty v. Hughes, 433 P.3d 1196 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “On appeal, this court held the superior court lacked jurisdiction to modify the foreign support order because it was never registered in Arizona as required by the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”), A.R.S. § 25-1201 to -1342. Id. at 7, ¶¶ 21-22.”
Danko v. Danko (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 25-1201 to -1362; S.C. Code Ann.”
Ali v. Ali, 509 P.3d 410 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “at 2, ¶ 1 (discussing A.R.S. §§ 25-1201 to -1342); see also A.R.”
Rewers v. Pope (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 25-1304(B). The “issuing state” is defined as “the state in which a tribunal issues a support order or renders a judgment determining parentage.”
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.