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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-407 (2026)

Legal decision-making and parenting time hearings; priority; costs; record

✓ 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

A. Legal decision-making and parenting time proceedings shall receive priority in being set for hearing.  If a party to a legal decision-making or parenting time action files a motion for temporary orders in any pre-decree matter, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing within sixty days after the party files the motion unless:

1. The filing party waives the requirement for a hearing to be conducted within sixty days after the party files the motion.

2. Temporary orders are established through a separate conference or hearing within sixty days after the party files the motion.

3. Extraordinary circumstances exist and the court is not able to schedule the hearing.  If the court is not able to schedule the hearing within sixty days after the motion is filed, it must make a written finding on the record as to the cause of the delay.

B. Subsection A of this section does not preclude any other conference or hearing.

C. The court may charge as costs the payment of necessary travel and other expenses incurred by any person whose presence at the hearing the court deems necessary to determine the best interest of the child.

D. The court, without a jury, shall determine questions of law and fact. If it finds that a public hearing may be detrimental to the child's best interest, the court may exclude the public from a custody hearing, but may admit any person who has a direct and legitimate interest in the particular case or a legitimate educational or research interest in the work of the court.

E. If the court finds that to protect the child's welfare, the record of any interview, report, investigation or testimony in a legal decision-making or parenting time proceeding should be kept secret, the court may then make an appropriate order sealing the record.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lambertus v. Hon. porter/day-strange, 332 P.3d 608 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “) 5 If the legislature intended to place a visitation request on the same footing as legal decision-making and parenting time, presumably it would have said as much in A.R.S. § 25-407, which (1) provides that legal decision- making and parenting time hearings have priority…”
Jf v. Hon. como/cf, No. 1 CA-SA 21-0123 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 12, 2022). · cites it 2× “¶16 To that end, the courts “must strive to marshal, inspect and analyze the relevant and admissible evidence needed for it to reach a well-informed decision in the child’s best interests.”
Farnsworth v. Moore, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0596-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2025). · cites it 2× “¶24 Father asserts the superior court judge was biased and erred in denying his disqualification request.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-407(D): 2 cases
Jf v. Hon. como/cf, No. 1 CA-SA 21-0123 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 12, 2022). “¶16 To that end, the courts “must strive to marshal, inspect and analyze the relevant and admissible evidence needed for it to reach a well-informed decision in the child’s best interests.”
Farnsworth v. Moore, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0596-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2025). “¶24 Father asserts the superior court judge was biased and erred in denying his disqualification request.”
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.