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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01 (2026)

Sole and joint legal decision-making and parenting time

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

25-403.01. Sole and joint legal decision-making and parenting time

A. In awarding legal decision-making, the court may order sole legal decision-making or joint legal decision-making.

B. In determining the level of decision-making that is in the child's best interests, the court shall consider the factors prescribed in section 25-403, subsection A and all of the following:

1. The agreement or lack of an agreement by the parents regarding joint legal decision-making.

2. Whether a parent's lack of an agreement is unreasonable or is influenced by an issue not related to the child's best interests.

3. The past, present and future abilities of the parents to cooperate in decision-making about the child to the extent required by the order of joint legal decision-making.

4. Whether the joint legal decision-making arrangement is logistically possible.

C. An order for sole legal decision-making does not allow the parent designated as sole legal decision-maker to alter unilaterally a court-ordered parenting time plan.

D. A parent who is not granted sole or joint legal decision-making is entitled to reasonable parenting time to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the parent unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time would endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Jordan v. Rea, 212 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jordan v. Rea, 212 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “”) §§ 25-403.01, 25-403.02(A)(l) (2007). Thus, the issues arising here may arise in any joint custody case in Arizona when one parent desires the child to attend a private religious school and the other objects, unless the parenting plan leaves school choice to one parent alone…”
Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 304 P.3d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See *299 A.R.S. § 25-403.01(D) (West 2013) (parent entitled to reasonable parenting time “to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the parent” so long as court does not find it would “endanger the child’s physical, mental,…”
Baker v. Meyer, 346 P.3d 998 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “02(0(3); see also A.R.S. § 25-403.01. Courts are directed to “adopt a parenting plan that provides for both parents to share legal decision-making regarding their child and that maximizes their respective parenting time.”
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 6× “It made additional findings on the A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) factors and the lack of domestic violence, substance abuse, or sex offenses under §§ 25-403.”
A. Espinoza v. M. Espinoza (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “”) (emphasis added); A.R.S. § 25-403.01 (addressing whether “parenting time would endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health”).”
Campbell v. Newell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “A.R.S. § 25-403.01(A). By disregarding Mother’s opinions, Father has effectively converted his final decision-making authority into sole decision-making authority.”
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “The finding pertained to the analysis under § 25-403.01(A) only. The court did not cite to § 25-403.”
Bennie v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “§ 25-403(A) and, if decision-making is at issue, the four factors listed in A.R.S. § 25-403.01. As relevant here, the court must also consider whether the parents have engaged in domestic violence or substance abuse.”
Gish v. Greyson, 514 P.3d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “To support her argument, Mother cites A.R.S. § 25-403.01(D), which provides that a “parent who is not granted sole or joint legal decision-making is entitled to reasonable parenting time to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact…”
Shaw v. Bergeron (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “BERGERON Decision of the Court and “a specific duration.” Under a plain reading of the statute, however, the phrase, “level of decision making,” is a reference to the two options for legal decision-making given in A.”
Schritter v. Schritter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B)(2) (The level of legal decision-making is based on whether the reason for the parents’ disagreement is unreasonable or unrelated to the child’s best interests.”
Johnson v. Malone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5× “§ 25-403(A) (2019) and A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) (2019), the superior court must determine legal decision-making and parenting time "in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
Show all 57 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(0) — 1 case
Jordan v. Rea, 212 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “”) §§ 25-403.01, 25-403.02(A)(l) (2007). Thus, the issues arising here may arise in any joint custody case in Arizona when one parent desires the child to attend a private religious school and the other objects, unless the parenting plan leaves school choice to one parent alone…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(A) — 4 cases
Shaw v. Bergeron (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “BERGERON Decision of the Court and “a specific duration.” Under a plain reading of the statute, however, the phrase, “level of decision making,” is a reference to the two options for legal decision-making given in A.”
Bennie v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 25-403(A) and, if decision-making is at issue, the four factors listed in A.R.S. § 25-403.01. As relevant here, the court must also consider whether the parents have engaged in domestic violence or substance abuse.”
Campbell v. Newell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “A.R.S. § 25-403.01(A). By disregarding Mother’s opinions, Father has effectively converted his final decision-making authority into sole decision-making authority.”
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “The finding pertained to the analysis under § 25-403.01(A) only. The court did not cite to § 25-403.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B) — 23 cases
Jordan v. Rea, 212 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “”) §§ 25-403.01, 25-403.02(A)(l) (2007). Thus, the issues arising here may arise in any joint custody case in Arizona when one parent desires the child to attend a private religious school and the other objects, unless the parenting plan leaves school choice to one parent alone…”
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “It made additional findings on the A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) factors and the lack of domestic violence, substance abuse, or sex offenses under §§ 25-403.”
Shaw v. Bergeron (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “BERGERON Decision of the Court and “a specific duration.” Under a plain reading of the statute, however, the phrase, “level of decision making,” is a reference to the two options for legal decision-making given in A.”
Johnson v. Boatley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Manola v. Espinoza (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(1) — 2 cases
Campbell v. Newell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “A.R.S. § 25-403.01(A). By disregarding Mother’s opinions, Father has effectively converted his final decision-making authority into sole decision-making authority.”
Johnson v. Malone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 25-403(A) (2019) and A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) (2019), the superior court must determine legal decision-making and parenting time "in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(2) — 4 cases
Campbell v. Newell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “A.R.S. § 25-403.01(A). By disregarding Mother’s opinions, Father has effectively converted his final decision-making authority into sole decision-making authority.”
Schritter v. Schritter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B)(2) (The level of legal decision-making is based on whether the reason for the parents’ disagreement is unreasonable or unrelated to the child’s best interests.”
Shifflett v. Porter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Eastman v. Eastman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(3) — 9 cases
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “It made additional findings on the A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) factors and the lack of domestic violence, substance abuse, or sex offenses under §§ 25-403.”
Schritter v. Schritter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B)(2) (The level of legal decision-making is based on whether the reason for the parents’ disagreement is unreasonable or unrelated to the child’s best interests.”
Johnson v. Malone (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 25-403(A) (2019) and A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) (2019), the superior court must determine legal decision-making and parenting time "in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
Curtis v. Curtis (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
Brown v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(4) — 3 cases
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “It made additional findings on the A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) factors and the lack of domestic violence, substance abuse, or sex offenses under §§ 25-403.”
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
Schritter v. Schritter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “See A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B)(2) (The level of legal decision-making is based on whether the reason for the parents’ disagreement is unreasonable or unrelated to the child’s best interests.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(D) — 17 cases
Calvin B. v. Brittany B., 304 P.3d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “See *299 A.R.S. § 25-403.01(D) (West 2013) (parent entitled to reasonable parenting time “to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the parent” so long as court does not find it would “endanger the child’s physical, mental,…”
A. Espinoza v. M. Espinoza (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “”) (emphasis added); A.R.S. § 25-403.01 (addressing whether “parenting time would endanger the child’s physical, mental, moral or emotional health”).”
Gish v. Greyson, 514 P.3d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “To support her argument, Mother cites A.R.S. § 25-403.01(D), which provides that a “parent who is not granted sole or joint legal decision-making is entitled to reasonable parenting time to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact…”
Bennie v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “§ 25-403(A) and, if decision-making is at issue, the four factors listed in A.R.S. § 25-403.01. As relevant here, the court must also consider whether the parents have engaged in domestic violence or substance abuse.”
Crewse v. Crewse (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(E) — 1 case
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “The finding pertained to the analysis under § 25-403.01(A) only. The court did not cite to § 25-403.”
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.