The best interests factors, joint vs. sole legal decision-making, and parenting plans in Maricopa County Family Court
By Sarah Chen · Updated June 16, 2026
If you are facing a custody dispute in the Phoenix metro, the single phrase that will govern your case is "the best interests of the child." Arizona judges are not asked to decide which parent is more deserving, who filed first, or who earns more. Under A.R.S. §25-403, the court is required to weigh a specific list of statutory factors and decide what arrangement serves the child. Understanding how Maricopa County Superior Court applies that standard is the difference between walking into a parenting conference prepared and walking in hoping for the best.
This guide explains the modern Arizona framework — including the terminology change that surprises many parents — and walks through each best-interests factor, how joint and sole arrangements are decided, what a parenting plan must contain, and the rules that apply when one parent wants to relocate the child.
Since 2013, Arizona statutes have replaced the term "custody" with two separate concepts. Knowing the difference matters because they are decided independently.
Legal decision-making is the legal right and responsibility to make major decisions about a child's education, health care, religious training, and personal care. Parenting time is the schedule — the actual days and hours the child spends with each parent. A parent can share joint legal decision-making with the other parent while one of them has the majority of the parenting-time schedule. These are defined in A.R.S. §25-401, and they are why a Maricopa County judge will issue orders addressing both questions rather than simply naming a "custodial parent."
A.R.S. §25-403(A) directs the court to consider all factors relevant to the child's physical and emotional well-being, and then lists the factors the judge must specifically address. In any contested case, the court must make these findings on the record. The statutory factors include:
Two features of this list catch parents off guard. First, the "friendly parent" factor — the willingness to support the child's relationship with the other parent — is weighed heavily in Maricopa County. A parent who disparages the other, blocks phone calls, or schedules activities to crowd out the other parent's time can damage their own position. Second, the child's preference is only one factor among many; there is no magic age at which a child gets to choose, and the judge decides how much weight a child's stated wishes deserve based on maturity.
A.R.S. §25-403(B) requires that in a contested case the court make specific findings on the record about each relevant factor and the reasons its decision is in the child's best interests. This is not a formality. Arizona appellate courts have reversed and remanded custody orders where the trial court failed to make adequate findings. For a parent, this means the evidence you present on each factor — school records, medical records, a parenting journal, witness testimony — is what the judge must build the ruling on.
A.R.S. §25-403.01 governs how the court chooses between joint and sole legal decision-making. Arizona law does not presume that joint decision-making is automatically best, but the policy of the state, reflected in A.R.S. §25-103, favors substantial, frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact with both parents when consistent with the child's best interests.
In deciding between joint and sole, the court considers the §25-403 factors plus additional considerations under §25-403.01(B): the agreement or lack of agreement between the parents, whether a parent's lack of agreement is unreasonable or motivated by something other than the child's best interests, the past and present ability of the parents to cooperate and make joint decisions, and whether joint decision-making is logistically possible. Importantly, the statute states that the court shall not prefer a parent's decision-making because of the parent's or child's gender — Arizona does not favor mothers over fathers.
| Arrangement | What it means | Common scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Joint legal decision-making | Both parents share authority over major decisions; neither has superior rights | Parents who communicate reasonably well, even after a difficult separation |
| Joint with a designated final decision-maker | Shared input, but one parent breaks a deadlock in a defined area (e.g., medical) | Parents who cooperate but occasionally reach impasse |
| Sole legal decision-making | One parent makes major decisions after considering the other's input | High conflict, domestic violence findings, or a parent who is absent or unfit |
Where the court finds significant domestic violence under A.R.S. §25-403.03, or a significant history of it, there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint legal decision-making to the parent who committed the violence is contrary to the child's best interests.
When parents reach an agreement, or when the court orders joint legal decision-making, A.R.S. §25-403.02 requires a written parenting plan. At a minimum the plan must include each parent's rights and responsibilities for the personal care of the child and for major decisions; a practical parenting-time schedule, including holidays and school vacations; a procedure for exchanges and for communication between the parents; a procedure for periodic review of the plan; a procedure for resolving disputes, including mediation where appropriate; and a statement that each parent has read and understands the requirements regarding notice of relocation. Maricopa County Family Court expects parents to submit a proposed plan, and a well-drafted, detailed plan that anticipates real-life logistics — pickups along the I-10 or SR-101 corridor, school-break travel, extracurricular schedules — tends to reduce future conflict and return trips to court.
One of the most contested issues after a custody order is relocation. A.R.S. §25-408 controls. When both parents reside in Arizona and both have parenting time under a court order, a parent who intends to relocate the child more than 100 miles within Arizona, or out of state, must provide the other parent at least 45 days' advance written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested. Within 30 days of that notice, the non-moving parent may petition the court to prevent the relocation.
If the matter is litigated, the parent seeking to relocate bears the burden of proving that the move is in the child's best interests. The court weighs the §25-403 factors plus the specific relocation factors in §25-408(I), including the reasons for and against the move, the effect on the child's stability, whether the move will allow a realistic schedule that preserves the relationship with the other parent, and whether the relocation is being made in good faith and not to interfere with the other parent's contact.
Custody orders are not permanent. Under A.R.S. §25-411, a parent generally must wait one year after the entry of a legal decision-making order before asking the court to modify it, with exceptions for situations involving domestic violence or a child's endangerment. To modify, the moving parent must usually show a substantial and continuing change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare, and then show that the requested change serves the child's best interests under §25-403.
Family law is fact-intensive, and Maricopa County judges have broad discretion. An experienced advocate helps you marshal evidence factor by factor, draft a parenting plan that holds up under real-world pressure, prepare for parenting conferences, and respond properly to a relocation notice within the tight statutory deadlines. If you are navigating a decision-making or parenting-time dispute in the Phoenix metro, you can compare experienced Arizona child custody attorneys in our directory.
Our directory connects you with experienced Arizona attorneys across the Phoenix metro.
Find an Attorney