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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01 (2026)

Sole and joint legal decision-making and parenting time

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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 weighed all relevant factors before it determined it was in Child’s best interest to be in control of his relationship with Father, and the evidence of Father and Child’s strained relationship supports the court’s conclusion.”
Gish v. Greyson, 514 P.3d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 7× “” See Antonin Scalia & Brian A. Garner, Reading Law: 10 The Interpretation of Legal Texts 107 (2012) (“The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others.”
A. Espinoza v. M. Espinoza, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0239-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2019). · cites it 12× “See Downs v. Sheffler, 206 Ariz. 496, 501, ¶ 19 (App.”
Campbell v. Newell, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0042-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2024). · cites it 12× “¶18 The court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of Leila.”
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0385-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020). · cites it 10× “01(E) factors as part of its other analyses, it did not make findings regarding all of the factors and it did not consider any findings within the context of the question presented by § 25-403.”
Bennie v. Johnson, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0026-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2022). · cites it 8× “Here, the court made record findings on all factors listed in A.”
Shaw v. Bergeron, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0194-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2021). · cites it 6× “Father cites no legal authority in support of a more limited application of the family court’s discretion regarding legal decision-making orders.”
Schritter v. Schritter, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0550-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024). · cites it 6× “¶25 Mother erroneously asserts that the superior court did not consider the child’s relationship with her two friends, whom she considers part of her extended family, or their testimony about the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.”
Johnson v. Malone, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0309-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2019). · cites it 5× “In a contested case, § 25-403(B) 4 states that "the court shall make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons" for the court's best-interests determination. Failure to make such findings on the record constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
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, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0194-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2021). “Father cites no legal authority in support of a more limited application of the family court’s discretion regarding legal decision-making orders.”
Bennie v. Johnson, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0026-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2022). “Here, the court made record findings on all factors listed in A.”
Campbell v. Newell, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0042-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2024). “¶18 The court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of Leila.”
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0385-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020). “01(E) factors as part of its other analyses, it did not make findings regarding all of the factors and it did not consider any findings within the context of the question presented by § 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 weighed all relevant factors before it determined it was in Child’s best interest to be in control of his relationship with Father, and the evidence of Father and Child’s strained relationship supports the court’s conclusion.”
Shaw v. Bergeron, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0194-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2021). “Father cites no legal authority in support of a more limited application of the family court’s discretion regarding legal decision-making orders.”
Johnson v. Boatley, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0252-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2016).
Manola v. Espinoza, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0772-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2016).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(1): 2 cases
Campbell v. Newell, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0042-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2024). “¶18 The court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of Leila.”
Johnson v. Malone, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0309-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2019). “In a contested case, § 25-403(B) 4 states that "the court shall make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons" for the court's best-interests determination. Failure to make such findings on the record constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(2): 4 cases
Campbell v. Newell, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0042-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2024). “¶18 The court did not abuse its discretion in finding a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of Leila.”
Schritter v. Schritter, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0550-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024). “¶25 Mother erroneously asserts that the superior court did not consider the child’s relationship with her two friends, whom she considers part of her extended family, or their testimony about the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.”
Shifflett v. Porter, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0619 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2014).
Eastman v. Eastman, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0286 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2015).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(3): 9 cases
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “It weighed all relevant factors before it determined it was in Child’s best interest to be in control of his relationship with Father, and the evidence of Father and Child’s strained relationship supports the court’s conclusion.”
Schritter v. Schritter, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0550-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024). “¶25 Mother erroneously asserts that the superior court did not consider the child’s relationship with her two friends, whom she considers part of her extended family, or their testimony about the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.”
Johnson v. Malone, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0309-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2019). “In a contested case, § 25-403(B) 4 states that "the court shall make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons" for the court's best-interests determination. Failure to make such findings on the record constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
Curtis v. Curtis, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0755-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2020).
Brown v. Smith, No. 1 CA-CV 20-0069-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2020).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(B)(4): 3 cases
Mesa v. O'Connor, 563 P.3d 1179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025). “It weighed all relevant factors before it determined it was in Child’s best interest to be in control of his relationship with Father, and the evidence of Father and Child’s strained relationship supports the court’s conclusion.”
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0756-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 29, 2015).
Schritter v. Schritter, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0550-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2024). “¶25 Mother erroneously asserts that the superior court did not consider the child’s relationship with her two friends, whom she considers part of her extended family, or their testimony about the child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.”
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,…”
Gish v. Greyson, 514 P.3d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). “” See Antonin Scalia & Brian A. Garner, Reading Law: 10 The Interpretation of Legal Texts 107 (2012) (“The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others.”
A. Espinoza v. M. Espinoza, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0239-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2019). “See Downs v. Sheffler, 206 Ariz. 496, 501, ¶ 19 (App.”
Bennie v. Johnson, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0026-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2022). “Here, the court made record findings on all factors listed in A.”
Crewse v. Crewse, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0721 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 15, 2026).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.01(E): 1 case
Hovannisian v. Hovannisian, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0385-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020). “01(E) factors as part of its other analyses, it did not make findings regarding all of the factors and it did not consider any findings within the context of the question presented by § 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.