The Alec and Lydia Act (HB 2995): What Arizona Parents in a Custody Dispute Need to Know
If you are going through a custody case in Arizona, the rules changed underneath you this summer.
On June 22, 2026, Governor Katie Hobbs signed HB 2995 — the Alec and Lydia Act — and because the bill carried an emergency clause, it took effect immediately. There was no grace period and no phase-in. The moment the Governor signed, Arizona family courts were operating under a new framework for how domestic violence is weighed in decisions about legal decision-making and parenting time.
This is one of the most significant changes to Arizona family law in years, and it affects a much wider group of parents than you might assume. You do not need a police report, a criminal conviction, or a bruise to be involved in a case that now turns on this law. Below is a plain-English breakdown of what the Alec and Lydia Act does, who it affects, and what it means if you are in the middle of a custody dispute right now.
Who Were Alec and Lydia?
Laws named after children are almost never good news, and this one is no exception. Alec and Lydia Mater were two Arizona children killed by their father in 2024 in a murder-suicide. Their mother, Hope Hooton, spent the following two years pushing the Legislature to change a family court system she believed had failed to protect her kids. "There has to be a reason that I'm still here," she said as the bill advanced. "I'm trying to turn what was a horrific tragedy into something positive that can help other families."
The bill passed the Arizona Legislature unanimously — a rare thing in any era — and the emergency signature reflects how urgently lawmakers wanted it in force. Understanding that origin matters, because it explains the law's central priority: when a court has to weigh a child's relationship with a parent against a child's physical safety, safety now wins.
What the Alec and Lydia Act Actually Changes
At its core, HB 2995 repeals Arizona's prior domestic violence custody statute (A.R.S. § 25-403.03) and replaces it with a stronger framework, while also amending related statutes governing parenting time and modification (§ 25-404 and § 25-411). Several changes stand out.
1. Domestic violence is now "contrary to the best interests of the child"
The statute now states plainly that domestic violence is contrary to a child's best interests, and it directs courts to give primary importance to the safety and well-being of both the child and the domestic violence victim. In a custody case, "best interests of the child" is the standard that governs everything. By anchoring safety at the top of that analysis, the law changes the gravitational pull of the entire case.
2. A single, stronger rebuttable presumption
Previously, Arizona used a layered approach that treated different levels of domestic violence differently. HB 2995 replaces that with one mandatory rebuttable presumption: if a court finds that a parent has committed domestic violence, it is presumed that giving that parent legal decision-making authority or unsupervised parenting time is contrary to the child's best interests.
To overcome that presumption, the accused parent generally must come forward with clear and convincing evidence — a demanding standard — and must show completion of a qualifying domestic violence treatment program that meets Arizona administrative standards. A treatment certificate by itself is no longer enough; the programs contemplated by the law involve privilege waivers and demonstrable reduction of risk. And even when a parent successfully rebuts the presumption, the court must still impose at least one protective measure.
3. Coercive control is now on the table
This is the change most likely to surprise parents. The law expands "domestic violence" well beyond isolated physical incidents to include coercive control — patterns of behavior used to threaten, isolate, monitor, intimidate, or control another person. The statute enumerates roughly fifteen categories, which can include things like:
Financial control or monitoring
Restricting access to transportation or communication
Monitoring someone's location or messages
Isolating a person from friends and family
Immigration-related threats
Using litigation itself as a weapon to harass or exhaust the other parent
Critically, these behaviors can be relevant even if they were never charged as crimes. For a protective parent, this opens a clearer path to describe a pattern that never produced a 911 call. For a parent who is accused, it means conduct you may not have thought of as "domestic violence" could now be characterized that way in court.
4. Lower evidentiary hurdles to prove abuse
Domestic violence can now be established by a preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not — and the law removes any requirement that the victim's testimony be corroborated by other witnesses or exhibits. Courts are directed to consider law enforcement reports, medical records, domestic violence shelter records, and witness testimony, and they generally cannot exclude "collateral acts" of domestic violence simply because of when they occurred or because they came up in prior litigation.
5. "Mutual" domestic violence is much harder to claim
Family courts sometimes resolved competing accusations by labeling the violence "mutual." HB 2995 largely closes that off. A court cannot treat violence as mutual unless the evidence shows both parents acted with a similar lack of justification and inflicted comparable harm — a deliberate move to stop genuine victims from being treated as equally culpable simply for defending themselves.
6. Findings required at temporary orders, not just trial
Custody cases often turn on temporary orders entered early, long before a final trial. The law now requires courts to make detailed written findings about domestic violence at the temporary orders stage too. Because early orders frequently set the pattern for the rest of a case, this front-loads the safety analysis to where it matters most.
7. Some familiar arguments no longer work
The statute expressly makes certain points legally irrelevant to the presumption analysis. A child's absence at the time of the abuse does not neutralize it, and a child's stated preference for the accused parent does not overcome the presumption. Courts also cannot require a victim or child to prove that continued custody would cause harm, and joint counseling between a victim and an alleged perpetrator cannot be ordered.
What This Means If You Are in a Custody Dispute Right Now
Because the law took effect immediately, it applies to cases already in progress — not just new filings. A few practical takeaways:
If you are a protective parent or a survivor of abuse. The Alec and Lydia Act gives you clearer language to present a pattern of control, not just a single incident, and it lowers some of the evidentiary barriers that used to make these cases feel impossible. Documentation matters more than ever: messages, financial records, logs of monitoring or controlling behavior, and records from law enforcement or shelters can all support your case. If you have an existing custody order, the law also allows courts to consider pre-existing domestic violence when you seek a modification.
If you have been accused of domestic violence or coercive control. The stakes are higher than they were before, and conduct you did not consider "abuse" — controlling finances, monitoring a phone, aggressive litigation tactics — can now be framed as coercive control. The rebuttable presumption is real and the standard to overcome it is high. This is not a situation to navigate alone or to assume will resolve itself.
For everyone. Expect domestic violence allegations to become more common in Arizona custody litigation, simply because the definition is broader and the evidentiary path is clearer. Early, careful legal guidance is more valuable than it has ever been, because so much now hinges on findings made at the very beginning of a case.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the Alec and Lydia Act take effect? Immediately. Governor Hobbs signed HB 2995 on June 22, 2026, and the emergency clause made it operative that day. It applies to pending cases, not only new ones.
Do I need a criminal conviction for this law to apply? No. Domestic violence findings in family court are civil determinations made by a preponderance of the evidence. There is no requirement of a criminal charge, conviction, or corroborating witness.
What is "coercive control"? It is a pattern of behavior used to threaten, isolate, monitor, intimidate, or control another person — including financial control, surveillance, isolation from loved ones, immigration threats, and using litigation to harass. The statute lists roughly fifteen categories, and these behaviors can matter even if they were never crimes.
Can a parent found to have committed domestic violence still see their child? Possibly, but not automatically and not without conditions. The parent must overcome a strong presumption, typically with clear and convincing evidence and completion of a qualifying treatment program, and the court must still impose at least one protective measure such as supervised parenting time or safe exchanges.
Does my child's preference matter? Not for the presumption. The law specifically makes a child's preference for the accused parent irrelevant to whether that presumption is overcome.
The Alec and Lydia Act is a major shift, and Arizona courts are only beginning to apply it. How judges interpret coercive control, what treatment programs qualify, and how the presumption plays out in real cases will develop over the coming months.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every family's situation is different, and the Alec and Lydia Act involves nuanced legal standards that apply differently depending on the facts of your case. If you are involved in a custody dispute, consult a qualified Arizona family law attorney about your specific circumstances.