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

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.