Based on parts 1 and 2 of this post, here’s a summary of key changes to ARS 25-403.03 as the result of HB2995 which became effective June 22, 2026.
| Issue | Old version 25-403.03 | HB 2995 |
| Public policy statement | None | Domestic violence = highest priority concern |
| Written findings required | No | Yes — mandatory, specific, including temp orders |
| Evidentiary standard | Unspecified | Preponderance of evidence |
| Corroboration required | Implied because not mentioned | Expressly not required |
| Prior acts evidence | Limited to factors listed and evidentiary limitations | Admissible to prove coercive control even if previously litigated |
| Presumption scope | Legal decision-making only | Legal decision-making AND parenting time |
| Mutual combat exception | Full exception if both committed DV | Exception only if similar degree and injury |
| Severity threshold required of victim | Not addressed | Expressly prohibited |
| Certificate of completion of DV course | Sufficient for rebuttal of presumption | Insufficient alone; requires disclosure and demonstrated insight into behaviors |
| Child’s preference for abuser | Could be considered | Expressly irrelevant |
| Burden to get supervised parenting time | No graduated standard | Preponderance |
| Burden to get unsupervised parenting time | Not specified | Clear and convincing evidence |
| Victim as supervisor | Allowed | Expressly prohibited |
| Suspension of all access | Not listed | Expressly permitted |
| Coercive control | Not defined | Defined and included in DV definition |
| Litigation as coercive tool | Not addressed | Included in coercive control definition |
| Forensic assessment with victim | Not addressed | Prohibited |
| Continuing presumption in modifications | Not addressed | Presumption continues |
| Temporary orders written findings | Not required | Required if DV alleged |
HB 2995 represents the most significant overhaul of Arizona’s family court domestic violence law in recent memory. The changes are clearly designed to limit judicial discretion which may have been perceived as minimizing DV findings, including minimization of DV incidents based on procedural or evidentiary bases.
The inclusion of coercive control in the definition of domestic violence, the prohibition against overcharacterization of mutual combat, and the loosening of evidentiary standards for proving DV all seem designed to enhance the court’s consideration of true domestic violence in family law cases. Family courts must be prepared to devote far more trial time to cases where DV is alleged, and far more time to rulings with findings that fulfill the requirements of the new law.
See Part 4 of this post for DV definitions.