Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

25-401. Definitions

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "In loco parentis" means a person who has been treated as a parent by a child and who has formed a meaningful parental relationship with a child for a substantial period of time.

2. "Joint legal decision-making" means both parents share decision-making and neither parent's rights or responsibilities are superior except with respect to specified decisions as set forth by the court or the parents in the final judgment or order.

3. "Legal decision-making" means the legal right and responsibility to make all nonemergency legal decisions for a child including those regarding education, health care, religious training and personal care decisions. For the purposes of interpreting or applying any international treaty, federal law, a uniform code or the statutes of other jurisdictions of the United States, legal decision-making means legal custody.

4. "Legal parent" means a biological or adoptive parent whose parental rights have not been terminated. Legal parent does not include a person whose paternity has not been established pursuant to section 25-812 or 25-814.

5. "Parenting time" means the schedule of time during which each parent has access to a child at specified times. Each parent during their scheduled parenting time is responsible for providing the child with food, clothing and shelter and may make routine decisions concerning the child's care.

6. "Sole legal decision-making" means one parent has the legal right and responsibility to make major decisions for a child.

7. "Visitation" means a schedule of time that occurs with a child by someone other than a legal parent.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Robert J Nicaise Jr v. Aparna Sundaram, 432 P.3d 925 (Ariz. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robert J Nicaise Jr v. Aparna Sundaram, 432 P.3d 925 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 12× “The court of appeals' opinion unnecessarily injects uncertainty into a well-established practice and is inconsistent with the overall structure of § 25-401. CONCLUSION ¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the first sentence of ¶ 1, the entirety of ¶¶ 17-19, the second and…”

Adrian E. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 369 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “The agreement and, consequently, the court’s order utilized principles and language consistent with 2012 amendments to title 25 that eliminated the terms “legal custody” and “visitation” and replaced them with “legal decision-making,” § 25-401(3), and “parenting time,” §…”

Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr, 418 P.3d 884 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 11× “That statute allows "a person other than a legal parent" to "petition the superior court for visitation with a child," and generally authorizes the court to "grant visitation rights during the child's minority on a finding that the visitation is in the child's best interests.”

Paul E. v. Courtney F., 439 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 25-410(A) ¶16 Once appointed as sole legal decision-maker for L., Father alone possessed the "legal right and responsibility to make major decisions" for L.”

Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “" A.R.S. § 25-401. [9] 9. Arizona Supreme Court, Planning for Parenting Time: Arizona's Guide for Parents Living Apart, (2009), available at http://www.”

Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin, 382 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “She nevertheless contends Suzan is *563 not a parent as that term is defined in A.R.S. § 25-401(4). She argues that as E.”

Nicaise v. Sundaram, 418 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “Under A.R.S. § 25-401(2), " '[j]oint legal decision-making' means both parents share decision-making and neither parent's rights or responsibilities are superior except with respect to specified decisions as set forth by the court or the parents in the final judgment or order.”

Marriage of Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez, 388 P.3d 9 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “As to Susan’s second argument, Tonya posits that Arizona does not recognize de facto parentage under either AR.S. §§ 25-401(4) (defining a legal parent), -814, or 8-117(A).”

Roberto F. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 301 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 25-401(1), the phrase "in loco parentis” is defined as "a person who has been treated as a parent by the child and who has formed a meaningful parental relationship with the child for a substantial period of time.”

Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “¶33 In sum, the majority opinion is in conflict with the plain language of § 25-404(A), the specific definitions of “parenting time” and “visitation” in § 25-401, the recent revisions of both of these statutes, and the constitutional presumptions afforded to parents.”

Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Sess. Laws, ch. 309, §§ 4, 5. 3 . "Parenting time” is defined by statute as "the schedule of time during which each parent has access to a child at specified times.”

Paul E. v. Courtney F., 418 P.3d 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “02(C)(1) (requiring parents to designate, in parenting plans, whether legal decision-making should be "joint or sole as defined in § 25-401"). " 'Joint legal decision-making' means both parents share decision-making and neither parent's rights or responsibilities are superior,"…”

Show all 55 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(1) — 6 cases

Roberto F. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 301 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Under A.R.S. § 25-401(1), the phrase "in loco parentis” is defined as "a person who has been treated as a parent by the child and who has formed a meaningful parental relationship with the child for a substantial period of time.”

In re the Marriage of Friedman, 397 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

Alupoaiei v. correa/alupoaiei (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

Gonzalez, Jr. v. moraga/alba (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

Flaigan v. Kittelson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(2) — 12 cases

Robert J Nicaise Jr v. Aparna Sundaram, 432 P.3d 925 (Ariz. 2019). “The court of appeals' opinion unnecessarily injects uncertainty into a well-established practice and is inconsistent with the overall structure of § 25-401. CONCLUSION ¶17 For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the first sentence of ¶ 1, the entirety of ¶¶ 17-19, the second and…”

Nicaise v. Sundaram, 418 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “Under A.R.S. § 25-401(2), " '[j]oint legal decision-making' means both parents share decision-making and neither parent's rights or responsibilities are superior except with respect to specified decisions as set forth by the court or the parents in the final judgment or order.”

Paul E. v. Courtney F., 418 P.3d 413 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “02(C)(1) (requiring parents to designate, in parenting plans, whether legal decision-making should be "joint or sole as defined in § 25-401"). " 'Joint legal decision-making' means both parents share decision-making and neither parent's rights or responsibilities are superior,"…”

Hustrulid v. Stakebake, 516 P.3d 18 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).

Webber v. Webber (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(3) — 16 cases

Adrian E. v. Dep't of Child Saf., 369 P.3d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “The agreement and, consequently, the court’s order utilized principles and language consistent with 2012 amendments to title 25 that eliminated the terms “legal custody” and “visitation” and replaced them with “legal decision-making,” § 25-401(3), and “parenting time,” §…”

Paul E. v. Courtney F., 439 P.3d 1169 (Ariz. 2019). “§ 25-410(A) ¶16 Once appointed as sole legal decision-maker for L., Father alone possessed the "legal right and responsibility to make major decisions" for L.”

Lisa Friedman v. David C Roels Jr, 418 P.3d 884 (Ariz. 2018). “That statute allows "a person other than a legal parent" to "petition the superior court for visitation with a child," and generally authorizes the court to "grant visitation rights during the child's minority on a finding that the visitation is in the child's best interests.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(4) — 17 cases

Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin, 382 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “She nevertheless contends Suzan is *563 not a parent as that term is defined in A.R.S. § 25-401(4). She argues that as E.”

Marriage of Doty-Perez v. Doty-Perez, 388 P.3d 9 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “As to Susan’s second argument, Tonya posits that Arizona does not recognize de facto parentage under either AR.S. §§ 25-401(4) (defining a legal parent), -814, or 8-117(A).”

Turner v. Steiner, 398 P.3d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).

Roger S. v. James S., 495 P.3d 327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(5) — 7 cases

Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “Sess. Laws, ch. 309, §§ 4, 5. 3 . "Parenting time” is defined by statute as "the schedule of time during which each parent has access to a child at specified times.”

Berrier v. Rountree, 433 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “¶33 In sum, the majority opinion is in conflict with the plain language of § 25-404(A), the specific definitions of “parenting time” and “visitation” in § 25-401, the recent revisions of both of these statutes, and the constitutional presumptions afforded to parents.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(6) — 6 cases

Berrier v. Rountree, 433 P.3d 8 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(7) — 4 cases

Hustrulid v. Stakebake, 516 P.3d 18 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).

Turfler v. Torrez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).

Flaigan v. Kittelson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-401(A) — 1 case

Taylor v. Jarrett, 959 P.2d 807 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).

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.