Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331 (2026)
Notification requirements
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
25-331. Notification requirements
A. In all proceedings brought pursuant to this title, the court shall provide the following written notification to all parties:
You may request conclusions of fact and law on the following issues, if they are contested: the issues of child custody, relocation requests, spousal maintenance, community property, community debt and child support. To request conclusions of fact and law, you must file a written request with the court before the trial or the evidentiary hearing. If you make a written request before the trial or evidentiary hearing, the court will make conclusions of fact and law as part of the final decision.
B. The court shall provide the notification required by subsection A to all parties in the minute entry setting the case for a trial or evidentiary hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases, 1969–1994 · leading case: Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994).
Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994). “Jurisdiction for determining issues of custody in domestic relations cases is governed by A.R.S. § 25-331: A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings shall be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-05401, 845 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “The primary issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court may award long-term joint custody to a minor child’s grandparents under authority of A.R.S. § 25-331 without making a determination of dependency under A.”
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Both the domestic relations and the juvenile codes apply to custodial disposition of minor children, but the requirements for maintaining an action, and obtaining custody, under each of the codes differ significantly.”
Marshall v. Super. Ct. in & for Yavapai Cnty., 701 P.2d 567 (Ariz. 1985). “In rejecting petitioner’s argument that A.R.S. § 25-331 does not permit grandparental custody where the child is in the physical custody of one of the parents, the trial court, by minute entry, ruled: that this section deals only with the institution of a proceeding and does not…”
McNeal v. Mahoney, 574 P.2d 31 (Ariz. 1977). “A.R.S. § 25-331 A. (1973) states: “The superior court for the state of Arizona is vested with jurisdiction to decide child custody matters by initial determination or modification decree 1 if: * * * * * * “2.”
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston, 653 P.2d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “6, § 14 and is directly conferred by A.R.S. § 25-331. A.R.S. § 25-331 is clear that jurisdiction (the power) of the superior court to act in custody matters is *596 derived from the domiciliary status of the child, the connection of the child and the contestants with this state,…”
Bryan v. Bryan, 645 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “Jurisdiction to determine custody in a dissolution proceeding is controlled by A.R.S. § 25-331: “A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings will be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
Thornsberry v. Superior Court, Mohave Cnty., 707 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1985). “1 Hunter claimed such right pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-331, -337. Petitioner opposed Hunter’s request for visitation on the grounds that a proceeding seeking to establish visitation rights can only be commenced by “a parent,” and Hunter was foreclosed from affirmatively…”
Smart v. Cantor, 574 P.2d 27 (Ariz. 1977). “hearing that petitioner received her first notice of the hearing. Because of this abbreviated notice she was unable to prepare a responsive pleading.”
Finck v. Superior Court, 868 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 25-331 (1991). See Olvera, 168 Ariz.”
Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979). “We referred to subsection B of A.R.S. § 25-331, which is identical to § 8-403(B), and reads: “ * * * physical presence in this state of the child, or the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of this state to make a child…”
Carlson v. Brown, 576 P.2d 1387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “These provisions read: § 25-331. Jurisdiction; commencement of proceedings A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(13) — 1 case
Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994). “Jurisdiction for determining issues of custody in domestic relations cases is governed by A.R.S. § 25-331: A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings shall be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(A) — 4 cases
McNeal v. Mahoney, 574 P.2d 31 (Ariz. 1977). “A.R.S. § 25-331 A. (1973) states: “The superior court for the state of Arizona is vested with jurisdiction to decide child custody matters by initial determination or modification decree 1 if: * * * * * * “2.”
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
J.A.R. v. Superior Court, 877 P.2d 1323 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Carlson v. Brown, 576 P.2d 1387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “These provisions read: § 25-331. Jurisdiction; commencement of proceedings A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(A)(2) — 3 cases
McNeal v. Mahoney, 574 P.2d 31 (Ariz. 1977). “A.R.S. § 25-331 A. (1973) states: “The superior court for the state of Arizona is vested with jurisdiction to decide child custody matters by initial determination or modification decree 1 if: * * * * * * “2.”
Carlson v. Brown, 576 P.2d 1387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “These provisions read: § 25-331. Jurisdiction; commencement of proceedings A.”
Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979). “We referred to subsection B of A.R.S. § 25-331, which is identical to § 8-403(B), and reads: “ * * * physical presence in this state of the child, or the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of this state to make a child…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(B) — 5 cases
Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994). “Jurisdiction for determining issues of custody in domestic relations cases is governed by A.R.S. § 25-331: A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings shall be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
Marshall v. Super. Ct. in & for Yavapai Cnty., 701 P.2d 567 (Ariz. 1985). “In rejecting petitioner’s argument that A.R.S. § 25-331 does not permit grandparental custody where the child is in the physical custody of one of the parents, the trial court, by minute entry, ruled: that this section deals only with the institution of a proceeding and does not…”
Finck v. Superior Court, 868 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 25-331 (1991). See Olvera, 168 Ariz.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-05401, 845 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “The primary issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court may award long-term joint custody to a minor child’s grandparents under authority of A.R.S. § 25-331 without making a determination of dependency under A.”
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Both the domestic relations and the juvenile codes apply to custodial disposition of minor children, but the requirements for maintaining an action, and obtaining custody, under each of the codes differ significantly.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(B)(1)(a) — 1 case
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Both the domestic relations and the juvenile codes apply to custodial disposition of minor children, but the requirements for maintaining an action, and obtaining custody, under each of the codes differ significantly.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(B)(2) — 6 cases
Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994). “Jurisdiction for determining issues of custody in domestic relations cases is governed by A.R.S. § 25-331: A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings shall be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-05401, 845 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “The primary issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court may award long-term joint custody to a minor child’s grandparents under authority of A.R.S. § 25-331 without making a determination of dependency under A.”
In Re Custody of C.C.R.S., 872 P.2d 1337 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
Webb v. Charles, 611 P.2d 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Both the domestic relations and the juvenile codes apply to custodial disposition of minor children, but the requirements for maintaining an action, and obtaining custody, under each of the codes differ significantly.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(B)(l) — 5 cases
Olvera v. Superior Court, 815 P.2d 925 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Both the domestic relations and the juvenile codes apply to custodial disposition of minor children, but the requirements for maintaining an action, and obtaining custody, under each of the codes differ significantly.”
Finck v. Superior Court, 868 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 25-331 (1991). See Olvera, 168 Ariz.”
In re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-05401, 845 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “The primary issue on appeal is whether the juvenile court may award long-term joint custody to a minor child’s grandparents under authority of A.R.S. § 25-331 without making a determination of dependency under A.”
Marshall v. Super. Ct. in & for Yavapai Cnty., 701 P.2d 567 (Ariz. 1985). “In rejecting petitioner’s argument that A.R.S. § 25-331 does not permit grandparental custody where the child is in the physical custody of one of the parents, the trial court, by minute entry, ruled: that this section deals only with the institution of a proceeding and does not…”
Thornsberry v. Superior Court, Mohave Cnty., 707 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1985). “1 Hunter claimed such right pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-331, -337. Petitioner opposed Hunter’s request for visitation on the grounds that a proceeding seeking to establish visitation rights can only be commenced by “a parent,” and Hunter was foreclosed from affirmatively…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(B)(l)(a) — 1 case
Bryan v. Bryan, 645 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “Jurisdiction to determine custody in a dissolution proceeding is controlled by A.R.S. § 25-331: “A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings will be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(BX1) — 1 case
Bryan v. Bryan, 645 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “Jurisdiction to determine custody in a dissolution proceeding is controlled by A.R.S. § 25-331: “A. Jurisdiction for child custody proceedings will be governed by title 8, chapter 4, article 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(C) — 4 cases
Garay Uppen v. Superior Court of Pima Cnty., 567 P.2d 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
Matter of Pima Cty. Juv. Severance Action, 876 P.2d 1121 (Ariz. 1994).
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Action No. JD-4974, 785 P.2d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
Father in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. S-114487 v. Adam, 876 P.2d 1121 (Ariz. 1994).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(D) — 2 cases
Smart v. Cantor, 574 P.2d 27 (Ariz. 1977). “hearing that petitioner received her first notice of the hearing. Because of this abbreviated notice she was unable to prepare a responsive pleading.”
McNeal v. Mahoney, 574 P.2d 31 (Ariz. 1977). “A.R.S. § 25-331 A. (1973) states: “The superior court for the state of Arizona is vested with jurisdiction to decide child custody matters by initial determination or modification decree 1 if: * * * * * * “2.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-331(E) — 2 cases
Smart v. Cantor, 574 P.2d 27 (Ariz. 1977). “hearing that petitioner received her first notice of the hearing. Because of this abbreviated notice she was unable to prepare a responsive pleading.”
Garay Uppen v. Superior Court of Pima Cnty., 567 P.2d 1210 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
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.