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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04 (2026)

Substance abuse

✓ 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

25-403.04. 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, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Searles v. Wolfe, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024). · cites it 22× “The court abuses its discretion “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”
Christopher v. v. Erica O., No. 1 CA-CV 25-0655 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026). · cites it 13× “Findings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court appropriately protects the child.” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A).”
Nicaise v. Sundaram, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0319-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). · cites it 10× “To determine whether the parent rebuts the presumption against legal decision-making, the court must consider evidence of (1) “[t]he absence of any conviction of any other drug offense during the previous five years,” (2) “[r]esults of random drug testing for a six month period…”
Hull v. Wesley, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0640-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. May 19, 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, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0004-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2022). · cites it 9× “Father should have taken around 150 to 190 random drug tests before the trial under the order. But at the trial, he submitted evidence of fewer than 30 completed drug tests, four of which were positive.”
McCallum v. Costello, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0710 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 22, 2026). · cites it 9× “12(a) (“[T]he court may conduct an in camera interview with a minor child who is the subject of a legal decision-making or parenting time dispute to ascertain the child’s preferences as to both.”
Durbin v. Keller, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0338-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 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, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0497-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2019). · cites it 8× “The court’s limitation on Mother’s parenting time and its requirement that she continue to submit to drug testing satisfies the statutory requirement that the court’s orders must appropriately protect the child.”
McEnaney v. Ducharme, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0203-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023). · cites it 8× “¶16 In its order, the court considered each factor under A.”
Rea v. Garza, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0757-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2019). · cites it 6× “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.”
Rodriguez v. Reynolds, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0044-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2021). · cites it 6× “§ 25-403.04 and multiple subsections of A.R.”
Webster v. Smith, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0145-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022). · cites it 6× “04 requires that, 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 §§ 28-1381, 28-1382 or 28- 1383 within twelve months before the petition or the request for legal…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(A): 21 cases
Christopher v. v. Erica O., No. 1 CA-CV 25-0655 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026). “Findings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court appropriately protects the child.” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A).”
McCallum v. Costello, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0710 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 22, 2026). “12(a) (“[T]he court may conduct an in camera interview with a minor child who is the subject of a legal decision-making or parenting time dispute to ascertain the child’s preferences as to both.”
Walker v. Sinikova, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0174-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016).
Jf v. Hon. como/cf, No. 1 CA-SA 21-0123 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 12, 2022).
Searles v. Wolfe, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024). “The court abuses its discretion “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(A)(1): 3 cases
Searles v. Wolfe, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024). “The court abuses its discretion “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”
Petrizze v. Johnson, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0401-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).
Nicaise v. Sundaram, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0319-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). “To determine whether the parent rebuts the presumption against legal decision-making, the court must consider evidence of (1) “[t]he absence of any conviction of any other drug offense during the previous five years,” (2) “[r]esults of random drug testing for a six month period…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(A)(2): 2 cases
Santoro v. Santoro, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0497-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2019). “The court’s limitation on Mother’s parenting time and its requirement that she continue to submit to drug testing satisfies the statutory requirement that the court’s orders must appropriately protect the child.”
Nicaise v. Sundaram, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0319-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). “To determine whether the parent rebuts the presumption against legal decision-making, the court must consider evidence of (1) “[t]he absence of any conviction of any other drug offense during the previous five years,” (2) “[r]esults of random drug testing for a six month period…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B): 12 cases
Hull v. Wesley, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0640-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. May 19, 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, No. 1 CA-CV 21-0319-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 27, 2023). “To determine whether the parent rebuts the presumption against legal decision-making, the court must consider evidence of (1) “[t]he absence of any conviction of any other drug offense during the previous five years,” (2) “[r]esults of random drug testing for a six month period…”
Christopher v. v. Erica O., No. 1 CA-CV 25-0655 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026). “Findings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court appropriately protects the child.” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A).”
Durbin v. Keller, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0338-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 12, 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, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0401-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2019).
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B)(1): 2 cases
Searles v. Wolfe, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024). “The court abuses its discretion “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”
Christopher v. v. Erica O., No. 1 CA-CV 25-0655 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2026). “Findings that the legal decision-making or parenting time arrangement ordered by the court appropriately protects the child.” A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B)(2): 1 case
Searles v. Wolfe, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024). “The court abuses its discretion “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.04(B)(3): 1 case
Searles v. Wolfe, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0074 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024). “The court abuses its discretion “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.”
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.