This is the 9th post about ARS 25-403.03, Arizona’s new DV law. The previous post discussing coercive control is here.
How much does the severity of an act (acts) of domestic violence matter in determining punishment in family court proceedings? How much does the frequency of such acts matter? Should severity and frequency matter when the punishment and outcome to the abuser is potentially loss of all parenting time or legal decision-making?
Under the new statute (effective June 22, 2026), severity and frequency don’t seem to be important in determining whether domestic violence occurred. 403.03D specifically prohibits the court from requiring proof of severity or frequency before applying the mandatory presumption that the abuser will lose parenting time and legal decision-making. The specific language is “D. The court may not do either of the following: (1) Require the victim to prove that the domestic violence was severe or frequent enough to justify restricting the legal decision-making or parenting time of the [abuser].”
Severity and frequency are mentioned in one other context in this statute, that of the abuser’s attempt to rebut the mandatory presumption that cost him or her access to the children. In considering rebuttal, the Court shall consider “(1) the severity and frequency of the parent’s domestic violence against any person . . . and (3) whether the parent committed domestic violence with sufficient severity or frequency that the passage of time is not a mitigating factor.” [1]
The second clause is hard to follow, as it’s somewhat of a double negative. In essence, that section MAY mean that the passage of time IS a mitigating factor to acts of domestic violence, UNLESS the acts were severe or frequent. That makes some sense in considering whether the abuser has rebutted the presumption, if in fact that’s what that section means.
The first clause is problematic for several reasons. It seems clear under this statute that the court may now consider acts of domestic violence against any person (not just the accuser in this case), and “severity and frequency” of those other acts are relevant to rebuttal. But why isn’t the “severity and frequency” of the domestic violence alleged in this case relevant to the original finding of domestic violence (and imposition of the mandatory presumption)?
When coupled with another aspect of this statute, 403.03F(1) and (2), the lack of emphasis on severity and frequency is even more concerning. Per Subsection F, the court is prohibited from considering (1) whether the child was at the scene of the domestic violence and (2) whether the child was aware that domestic violence occurred.
To be sure, domestic violence towards the victim should be treated seriously whether or not a child is present or aware of the acts. But protecting the victim does not rationally need to include a complete prohibition of parenting time (or legal decision-making), particularly when the severity or frequency of the DV is not to be considered.
It remains to be seen if the mandatory presumption against parenting time can be supported or justified by solid, peer-reviewed research, where severity and frequency of the acts are not considered, and where there is no showing (or even consideration) of direct harm to the child through witnessing or awareness.
[1] 403.03E.