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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04 (2026)

Substance abuse

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

25-403.04. Substance abuse

A. If the court determines that a parent has abused drugs or alcohol or has been convicted of any drug offense under title 13, chapter 34 or any violation of section 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28-1383 within twelve months before the petition or the request for legal decision-making or parenting time is filed, there is a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint legal decision-making by that parent is not in the child's best interests.  In making this determination the court shall state its:

1. Findings of fact that support its determination that the parent abused drugs or alcohol or was convicted of the offense.

2. Findings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court appropriately protects the child.

B. To determine if the person has rebutted the presumption, at a minimum the court shall consider the following evidence:

1. The absence of any conviction of any other drug offense during the previous five years.

2. Results of random drug testing for a six month period that indicate that the person is not using drugs as proscribed by title 13, chapter 34.

3. Results of alcohol or drug screening provided by a facility approved by the department of health services.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 22× “Legal Decision-Making ¶18 Mother argues the superior court erred by failing to properly apply the statutory presumption against awarding joint legal decision- making authority to a parent who has abused drugs within twelve months before a petition is filed.”
Christopher v. v. Erica O. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 13× “04 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding any legal decision-making authority to a parent who has abused drugs or been convicted of a drug offense within the twelve months preceding the petition. By its terms, the statute requires specific findings: it provides that…”
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A). The court must make “[f]indings of fact that support its determination that the parent abused drugs or alcohol or was convicted of the offense,” and “[f]indings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court…”
Hull v. Wesley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “¶6 Father contends that, presented with evidence that Mother abused drugs, the superior court failed to properly apply the presumption against joint legal decision-making set forth in A.R.S. § 25-403.04 (2016). He further argues the evidence does not support the award of joint…”
Atkison v. Shafer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9× “The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Concluding that Father Rebutted the Substance Abuse Presumption Under A.R.S. § 25-403.04. ¶38 Grandmother also argues that the court erred by concluding that Father rebutted the presumption under A.”
McCallum v. Costello (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 9× “03” in ordering joint legal decision-making, and (3) “failing to apply A.R.S. § 25-403.04 in light of Father’s substance-abuse history.”
Durbin v. Keller (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 8× “The record does not support Mother’s contention that the superior court “completely disregarded” A.R.S. § 25-403.04, or that the court erred by not making specific findings under the section.”
Santoro v. Santoro (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “2 ¶18 The court’s citation of A.R.S. § 25-403.04 in its order and its findings and conclusions demonstrate it carefully considered the evidence of Mother’s drug use and her drug test results for the six months preceding the hearing.”
McEnaney v. Ducharme (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 8× “¶15 Mother argues the superior court lacked sufficient evidence to find Father overcame the presumption that joint legal decision-making and parenting time were not in the younger child’s best interests under A.”
Rea v. Garza (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 25-403.04. To determine whether that presumption is rebutted, the court “at a minimum” is required to consider evidence of the following: 1.”
Rodriguez v. Reynolds (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Mother also contends the court misapplied A.R.S. § 25-403.04 and multiple subsections of A.”
Webster v. Smith (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 25-403.04. ¶9 The record shows the court considered all the aforementioned statutory factors.”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(A) — 21 cases
Christopher v. v. Erica O. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “04 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding any legal decision-making authority to a parent who has abused drugs or been convicted of a drug offense within the twelve months preceding the petition. By its terms, the statute requires specific findings: it provides that…”
McCallum v. Costello (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “03” in ordering joint legal decision-making, and (3) “failing to apply A.R.S. § 25-403.04 in light of Father’s substance-abuse history.”
Walker v. Sinikova (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
Jf v. Hon. como/cf (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “Legal Decision-Making ¶18 Mother argues the superior court erred by failing to properly apply the statutory presumption against awarding joint legal decision- making authority to a parent who has abused drugs within twelve months before a petition is filed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(A)(1) — 3 cases
Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “Legal Decision-Making ¶18 Mother argues the superior court erred by failing to properly apply the statutory presumption against awarding joint legal decision- making authority to a parent who has abused drugs within twelve months before a petition is filed.”
Petrizze v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A). The court must make “[f]indings of fact that support its determination that the parent abused drugs or alcohol or was convicted of the offense,” and “[f]indings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(A)(2) — 2 cases
Santoro v. Santoro (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “2 ¶18 The court’s citation of A.R.S. § 25-403.04 in its order and its findings and conclusions demonstrate it carefully considered the evidence of Mother’s drug use and her drug test results for the six months preceding the hearing.”
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A). The court must make “[f]indings of fact that support its determination that the parent abused drugs or alcohol or was convicted of the offense,” and “[f]indings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B) — 12 cases
Hull v. Wesley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “¶6 Father contends that, presented with evidence that Mother abused drugs, the superior court failed to properly apply the presumption against joint legal decision-making set forth in A.R.S. § 25-403.04 (2016). He further argues the evidence does not support the award of joint…”
Nicaise v. Sundaram (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A). The court must make “[f]indings of fact that support its determination that the parent abused drugs or alcohol or was convicted of the offense,” and “[f]indings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court…”
Christopher v. v. Erica O. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “04 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding any legal decision-making authority to a parent who has abused drugs or been convicted of a drug offense within the twelve months preceding the petition. By its terms, the statute requires specific findings: it provides that…”
Durbin v. Keller (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “The record does not support Mother’s contention that the superior court “completely disregarded” A.R.S. § 25-403.04, or that the court erred by not making specific findings under the section.”
Petrizze v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B)(1) — 2 cases
Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “Legal Decision-Making ¶18 Mother argues the superior court erred by failing to properly apply the statutory presumption against awarding joint legal decision- making authority to a parent who has abused drugs within twelve months before a petition is filed.”
Christopher v. v. Erica O. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “04 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding any legal decision-making authority to a parent who has abused drugs or been convicted of a drug offense within the twelve months preceding the petition. By its terms, the statute requires specific findings: it provides that…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B)(2) — 1 case
Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “Legal Decision-Making ¶18 Mother argues the superior court erred by failing to properly apply the statutory presumption against awarding joint legal decision- making authority to a parent who has abused drugs within twelve months before a petition is filed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B)(3) — 1 case
Searles v. Wolfe (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). “Legal Decision-Making ¶18 Mother argues the superior court erred by failing to properly apply the statutory presumption against awarding joint legal decision- making authority to a parent who has abused drugs within twelve months before a petition is filed.”
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.