A. Except as provided in section 25-501, subsection F, if a respondent admits parentage or if the issue is decided in the affirmative in an action instituted during the child's minority, the court shall direct, subject to applicable equitable defenses and using a retroactive application of the current child support guidelines, the amount, if any, the parties shall pay for the past support of the child and the manner in which payment shall be made.
B. The court shall enter an order for support determined to be due for the period between the commencement of the proceeding and the date that current child support is ordered to begin. The court shall not order past support retroactive to more than three years before the commencement of the proceeding unless the court makes a written finding of good cause after considering all relevant circumstances, including:
1. The circumstances, conduct or motivation of the party who claims entitlement to past support in not seeking an earlier establishment of maternity or paternity.
2. The circumstances, conduct or motivation of the party from whom past support is sought in impeding the establishment of maternity or paternity.
3. The diligence with which service of process was attempted on the respondent.
C. The court shall also direct the amount either parent shall pay for the actual costs of the pregnancy, childbirth and any genetic testing and other related costs subject to production of billing statements or other documentation. This documentation is prima facie evidence of amounts incurred and is admissible in evidence without the need for foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or accuracy.
D. In any proceeding under this article the court shall order either parent or both parents to pay any monies reasonable and necessary for the support of the minor unemancipated child until the child reaches the age of majority or is emancipated. In determining the amount of support for the child, the court shall apply the child support guidelines pursuant to section 25-320, subsection D. If a child reaches the age of majority while the child is attending high school or a certified high school equivalency program, support shall continue to be provided while the child is actually attending high school or the equivalency program but only until the child reaches nineteen years of age unless the court enters an order pursuant to subsection F of this section.
E. The court may modify an order of support pursuant to section 25-503.
F. Even if a child is over the age of majority when a petition is filed or at the time of the final decree, the court may order support to continue past the age of majority if all of the following are true:
1. The court has considered the factors prescribed in subsection D of this section.
2. The child has severe mental or physical disabilities as demonstrated by the fact that the child is unable to live independently and be self-supporting.
3. The child's disability began before the child reached the age of majority.
G. After considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings, the court may order a party to pay a reasonable amount to the other party for the costs and expenses of maintaining or defending any proceeding under this article. The court may order the party to pay these amounts directly to the attorney. The attorney may enforce the order in the attorney's name with the same force and effect and in the same manner as if the order had been made on behalf of any party to the action. For the purposes of this subsection, "costs and expenses" includes attorney fees, deposition costs, appellate costs and other reasonable expenses the court determines were necessary.
H. The court has contempt powers to enforce its orders.
I. The parties may terminate an action brought under this article by agreement and compromise only if the court has approved the terms of the agreement and compromise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case:
Gelin v. Murray, 494 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
Gelin v. Murray, 494 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 52× “The court denied the motion, explaining that “[n]othing in the language of [A.R.S. § 25-809] requires the Court to award child support for the previous three years.”
Gersten v. Gersten, 219 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See also A.R.S. § 25-809(F) (2007) (to same effect in context of maternity and paternity actions) and A.”
STATE DES v. Valentine, 945 P.2d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “We cannot determine from the record whether such a support award was proper, and we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to hold a new support hearing based on the following as guidance.”
Hall v. Lalli, 977 P.2d 776 (Ariz. 1999).
“§ 12-849, now renumbered as § 25-809. 3 . A paternity action is, of course, a status determination.”
Hall v. Lalli, 952 P.2d 748 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “” The mother’s interests also were solely economic in seeking past and future child support, § 25-809(A), and “the expenses for the lying-in, support of and attendance upon the mother during her confinement.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Vallejo, 979 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 6× “He also requested an award of his attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-809(E). ¶ 7 Without taking any additional evidence, the trial court concluded that the State was barred by laches from collecting any past support that accrued prior to November 1995, when the State first…”
Katenta v. Corona, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0280-PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2024).
· cites it 25× “Subsection (B) “clarifies the constraints of that authority and requires that, subject only to applicable equitable defenses, the court shall enter an order for support due from the petition filing date to the date current support is ordered to begin.”
Wellman v. Waits, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0251-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2018).
· cites it 20× “This amount was based on A.R.S. § 25-809, which the court interpreted as allowing it to “limit the award of past support to the time 2 WELLMAN v.”
Barnes v. Richardson, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0545 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 23, 2026).
· cites it 18× “The court also granted Mother’s request for attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-324(A).”
In re the Support of V.L., 558 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 5× “¶14 In the alternative, Leal relies on § 25-320 to argue that the trial court should have awarded child support retroactive to the date of separation in July 2019. See § 25-320(C). At a minimum, she argues support should have commenced in November 2021, the month the state filed…”
Rodriguez v. Garcia, No. 1 CA-CV 18-0698-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2019).
· cites it 4× “the amount, if any, the parties shall pay for the past 2 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite the current version of rules and statutes.”
McEnaney v. Ducharme, No. 1 CA-CV 22-0203-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2023).
· cites it 4× “¶27 Because the order does not state findings to support a deviation from the Guidelines, it was error for the court not to award child support to Mother for the eldest child.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(A): 12 cases
Gelin v. Murray, 494 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“The court denied the motion, explaining that “[n]othing in the language of [A.R.S. § 25-809] requires the Court to award child support for the previous three years.”
STATE DES v. Valentine, 945 P.2d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
“We cannot determine from the record whether such a support award was proper, and we therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to hold a new support hearing based on the following as guidance.”
Hall v. Lalli, 952 P.2d 748 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“” The mother’s interests also were solely economic in seeking past and future child support, § 25-809(A), and “the expenses for the lying-in, support of and attendance upon the mother during her confinement.”
Katenta v. Corona, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0280-PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2024).
“Subsection (B) “clarifies the constraints of that authority and requires that, subject only to applicable equitable defenses, the court shall enter an order for support due from the petition filing date to the date current support is ordered to begin.”
Wellman v. Waits, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0251-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2018).
“This amount was based on A.R.S. § 25-809, which the court interpreted as allowing it to “limit the award of past support to the time 2 WELLMAN v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(B): 7 cases
Gelin v. Murray, 494 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“The court denied the motion, explaining that “[n]othing in the language of [A.R.S. § 25-809] requires the Court to award child support for the previous three years.”
Hall v. Lalli, 952 P.2d 748 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“” The mother’s interests also were solely economic in seeking past and future child support, § 25-809(A), and “the expenses for the lying-in, support of and attendance upon the mother during her confinement.”
In re the Support of V.L., 558 P.3d 962 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“¶14 In the alternative, Leal relies on § 25-320 to argue that the trial court should have awarded child support retroactive to the date of separation in July 2019. See § 25-320(C). At a minimum, she argues support should have commenced in November 2021, the month the state filed…”
Wellman v. Waits, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0251-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2018).
“This amount was based on A.R.S. § 25-809, which the court interpreted as allowing it to “limit the award of past support to the time 2 WELLMAN v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(B)(1): 2 cases
Gelin v. Murray, 494 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“The court denied the motion, explaining that “[n]othing in the language of [A.R.S. § 25-809] requires the Court to award child support for the previous three years.”
Wellman v. Waits, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0251-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2018).
“This amount was based on A.R.S. § 25-809, which the court interpreted as allowing it to “limit the award of past support to the time 2 WELLMAN v.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(B)(2007): 1 case
Gelin v. Murray, 494 P.3d 1112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“The court denied the motion, explaining that “[n]othing in the language of [A.R.S. § 25-809] requires the Court to award child support for the previous three years.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(D): 1 case
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(E): 1 case
State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Vallejo, 979 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“He also requested an award of his attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-809(E). ¶ 7 Without taking any additional evidence, the trial court concluded that the State was barred by laches from collecting any past support that accrued prior to November 1995, when the State first…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(F): 1 case
Gersten v. Gersten, 219 P.3d 309 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“See also A.R.S. § 25-809(F) (2007) (to same effect in context of maternity and paternity actions) and A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-809(G): 6 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Vallejo, 979 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“He also requested an award of his attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 25-809(E). ¶ 7 Without taking any additional evidence, the trial court concluded that the State was barred by laches from collecting any past support that accrued prior to November 1995, when the State first…”
Katenta v. Corona, No. 1 CA-CR 23-0280-PRPC (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2024).
“Subsection (B) “clarifies the constraints of that authority and requires that, subject only to applicable equitable defenses, the court shall enter an order for support due from the petition filing date to the date current support is ordered to begin.”
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.