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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-404 (2026)

Temporary orders

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

A. A party to a legal decision-making and parenting time proceeding may move for a temporary order. This motion must be supported by pleadings as provided in section 25-411. The court may award temporary legal decision-making and parenting time under the standards of section 25-403 after a hearing, or, if there is no objection, solely on the basis of the pleadings.

B. If a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or legal separation is dismissed, any temporary legal decision-making or parenting time order is vacated unless a parent or the child's custodian moves that the proceeding continue as a legal decision-making or parenting time proceeding and the court finds, after a hearing, that the circumstances of the parents and the best interest of the child require that a legal decision-making or parenting time plan decree be issued.

C. If a legal decision-making or parenting time proceeding commenced in the absence of a petition for dissolution of marriage or legal separation is dismissed, any temporary custody order thereby is vacated.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2022 · leading case: Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 16× “§ 25^403 are not mandatory when determining temporary orders under A.R.S § 25-404; and (3) a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity has the same effect as a judgment, thereby requiring Mother to obtain Father’s consent or a court order to permanently move the child out of…”
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 30× “The court denied Mother’s motion to strike, stating that because Grandmother is a party under A.R.S. § 25-404, “that pretty much resolves the issue of whether she can or cannot pursue temporary orders.”
Villares v. Pineda, 177 P.3d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “In this case, there were objections to the orders and thus an order without a hearing or agreement violated AR.S. § 25-404. 2 V17 Furthermore, Rule 47 requires the family court to set an evidentiary hearing *626 on disputed issues unless the parties agree to an alternate…”
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez, 433 P.3d 1190 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶9 “Special action jurisdiction is discretionary, but appropriate, when there is no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.” Courtney v. Foster ex rel.”
Myrick v. Maloney, 333 P.3d 818 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “47(A)(4) (establishing procedure for temporary orders regarding fees and expenses). The plain language of the statute indicates that it allows certain disadvantaged parties to secure attorney fees, costs, and expert witness fees “to allow adequate preparation.”
Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney, 334 P.3d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the superior court has statutory authority to issue temporary orders, A.R.S. § 25-404(A), even if the parent seeking parenting time has committed an act of domestic violence.”
McRae v. Hunter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 25-404 are "preparatory in nature" and "made in anticipation of further resolution of the issues at trial.”
Jf v. Hon. como/cf (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “02 (parenting plans); A.R.S. § 25-404 (temporary orders); A.R.S.”
Atkison v. Shafer (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 25-404. So the court should have determined child support when issuing the interim orders.”
Jilbert v. Hon. whitehead/jilbert (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “”) section 25-404, because they are “merely preparatory to a later proceeding” that might affect the judgment or its enforcement; they are thus not appealable, leaving a party with no adequate remedy by appeal.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-404(A) — 6 cases
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “§ 25^403 are not mandatory when determining temporary orders under A.R.S § 25-404; and (3) a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity has the same effect as a judgment, thereby requiring Mother to obtain Father’s consent or a court order to permanently move the child out of…”
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The court denied Mother’s motion to strike, stating that because Grandmother is a party under A.R.S. § 25-404, “that pretty much resolves the issue of whether she can or cannot pursue temporary orders.”
Myrick v. Maloney, 333 P.3d 818 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “47(A)(4) (establishing procedure for temporary orders regarding fees and expenses). The plain language of the statute indicates that it allows certain disadvantaged parties to secure attorney fees, costs, and expert witness fees “to allow adequate preparation.”
Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez, 433 P.3d 1190 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ¶9 “Special action jurisdiction is discretionary, but appropriate, when there is no equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.” Courtney v. Foster ex rel.”
Villares v. Pineda, 177 P.3d 1195 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “In this case, there were objections to the orders and thus an order without a hearing or agreement violated AR.S. § 25-404. 2 V17 Furthermore, Rule 47 requires the family court to set an evidentiary hearing *626 on disputed issues unless the parties agree to an alternate…”
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.