Senate Engrossed

domestic relations; parents' rights

State of Arizona

Senate

Fifty-seventh Legislature

Second Regular Session

2026

SENATE BILL 1328

AN ACT

amending section 25-103, arizona revised statutes; relating to domestic relations.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 25-103, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

START_STATUTE25-103. Purposes of title; application of title

A. It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of this title are:

1. To promote strong families. ; 

2. To promote strong family values.

3. To protect and promote parents' rights as prescribed in section 1-601.

4. To protect and promote the parents' bill of rights as prescribed in section 1-602.

B. It also is the declared public policy of this state and the general purpose of this title that, absent evidence to the contrary, it is in a child's best interest:

1. To have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents.

2. To have both parents participate in decision-making about the child.

3. That a child has a right to equal access to both co-parents.

C. A court shall apply the provisions of this title in a manner that is consistent with this section. END_STATUTE

Sec. 2. Legislative intent

The State of Arizona recognizes that:

1. Parental rights pursuant to section 1-601, Arizona Revised Statutes, and children's constitutional rights to family integrity under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protect the family unit from unwarranted state interference.

2. The right to unwarranted state interference is reciprocal to parents' fundamental rights to the care, custody and control of their children, as established in landmark Supreme Court cases such as Meyer v. Nebraska 262 (U.S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 1923), Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (268 U.S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 1925), Stanley v. Illinois (405 U.S. 510, 92 S. Ct. 1208, 1972), Santosky v. Kramer (455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1982) and Troxel v. Granville (520 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2000).

3. Federal circuit courts have affirmed rights for children in dependency proceedings, including in Duchesne v. Sugarman (566 F.2nd 817, 1977), Wallis v. Spencer (202 F.3d 1126, 2000) and Jordan v. Jackson (876 A.2d 443, 2005).

4. While existing jurisprudence asserts these rights and focuses on preventing unjust separation from the family as a whole and does not extend to a child's civil or constitutional right to equal access, it is the public policy of the State of Arizona that it does.

5. It is the policy of the State of Arizona that the "best interest of the child" standard prioritizes the child's welfare over any presumption of equality to either parent and to achieve that standard, family courts must recognize presumptions favoring shared parenting, unless evidence shows otherwise.