25-403.05. Sexual offenders; murderers; legal decision-making and parenting time; notification of risk to child
A. Unless the court finds that there is no significant risk to the child and states its reasons in writing, the court shall not grant a person sole or joint legal decision-making of a child or unsupervised parenting time with a child if the person:
1. Is a registered sex offender.
2. Has been convicted of murder in the first degree and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order. In making its finding, the court may consider, among other factors, the following:
(a) Credible evidence that the convicted parent was a victim of domestic violence, as defined in section 13-3601, committed by the murdered parent.
(b) Testimony of an expert witness that the convicted parent suffered trauma from abuse committed by the murdered parent.
B. A child's parent or custodian must immediately notify the other parent or custodian if the parent or custodian knows that a convicted or registered sex offender or a person who has been convicted of a dangerous crime against children as defined in section 13-705 may have access to the child. The parent or custodian must provide notice by first class mail, return receipt requested, by electronic means to an electronic mail address that the recipient provided to the parent or custodian for notification purposes or by other communication accepted by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case:
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016).
Hopkins v. Hopkins, 883 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. 2016).
“[12] The risk that an offender will reoffend need not be high or even probable in order to warrant a modification of custody under § 43-2933.”
S.A.N. v. S.E.N., 995 So. 2d 175 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
“, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-403.05; Ark.Code Ann.”
Toth v. Brower (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “Allegations of Child Molestation ¶20 Citing A.R.S. § 25-403.05, Mother further argues Father should have notified her that he was investigated for child molestation.”
Michael v. Michael (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “See A.R.S. § 25-403.05(A). ¶16 Father also claims that the court showed “no logical consistency” in awarding him less than equal parenting time despite its decision that unsupervised parenting time was appropriate.”
Johnson v. Boatley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 25-403.05(A). Here, the family court’s order notes that Father committed the offense at seventeen; that he completed his sentence for the offense; that DCS had investigated the offense and had determined it was not a bar to Father obtaining custody of J.”
San v. Sen, 995 So. 2d 175 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
“, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-403.05; Ark.Code Ann.”
Flores v. Florian (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
“A statement that each party has read, understands and will abide by the notification requirements of § 25-403.05, subsection B. The court’s ruling modifying the parenting time plan—in full—is “Mother’s supervised parenting time shall be from 5:00 p.”
Zimmerman v. Zimmerman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“A procedure for communicating with each other about the child, including methods and frequency.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.05(A) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Boatley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“” A.R.S. § 25-403.05(A). Here, the family court’s order notes that Father committed the offense at seventeen; that he completed his sentence for the offense; that DCS had investigated the offense and had determined it was not a bar to Father obtaining custody of J.”
Michael v. Michael (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See A.R.S. § 25-403.05(A). ¶16 Father also claims that the court showed “no logical consistency” in awarding him less than equal parenting time despite its decision that unsupervised parenting time was appropriate.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.05(A)(1) — 1 case
Michael v. Michael (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“See A.R.S. § 25-403.05(A). ¶16 Father also claims that the court showed “no logical consistency” in awarding him less than equal parenting time despite its decision that unsupervised parenting time was appropriate.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403.05(B) — 1 case
Toth v. Brower (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Allegations of Child Molestation ¶20 Citing A.R.S. § 25-403.05, Mother further argues Father should have notified her that he was investigated for child molestation.”
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.