Arizona's Alec and Lydia Act Adds Coercive Control to Custody Law

Arizona's Alec and Lydia Act Adds Coercive Control to Custody Law

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs signed House Bill 2995, the Alec and Lydia Act, on June 22, 2026. The emergency-clause law took effect immediately, adding coercive control, including stalking and GPS or tracking-technology misuse, to the state's domestic violence custody framework under A.R.S. § 25-403.03.

Information last verified on July 4, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Arizona family law only, specifically the amendments HB 2995 made to A.R.S. §§ 25-403.03, 25-404, and 25-411. It does not address custody law in any other state. For Arizona's general custody framework, see Arizona child custody laws, and for the state's protective-order process, see Arizona restraining order laws.

What Happened

Arizona's 57th Legislature, in its 2nd Regular Session, passed House Bill 2995, sponsored by Rep. Lisa Fink, after the Arizona Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders held public hearings through 2025 examining how family courts weigh domestic violence and coercive control in custody disputes. Governor Hobbs signed the bill on June 22, 2026. Because HB 2995 carried an emergency clause and received the required two-thirds vote, it took effect on the date of signature instead of on the general 90-days-after-sine-die schedule that applies to most Arizona legislation.

The bill is named for Alec and Lydia Mater. In May 2024, their father, Brock Mater, shot and killed both children before killing himself during a period of unsupervised, court-ordered parenting time, months after he had been treated for suicidal and homicidal ideation. Their mother, Hope Hooton, testified before the legislature as the bill moved through committee.

HB 2995 makes three structural changes. It rewrites A.R.S. § 25-403.03 to expand the legal definition of domestic violence to include coercive control, a pattern of non-physical conduct such as surveillance, tracking, and financial or communication control. It amends A.R.S. § 25-404 so that a court handling a temporary-orders proceeding must make written findings consistent with the new § 25-403.03(B) whenever a party alleges domestic violence. And it amends A.R.S. § 25-411 so the same presumption against awarding legal decision-making or parenting time to a parent found to have committed domestic violence carries into a later modification proceeding, not just an initial custody order.

What the Law Actually Says

Arizona's underlying best-interests statute, A.R.S. § 25-403, already directs courts to weigh evidence of domestic violence when deciding legal decision-making and parenting time. Before HB 2995, A.R.S. § 25-403.03 separately barred joint legal decision-making where a court found "significant domestic violence" under A.R.S. § 13-3601, and it created a rebuttable presumption that awarding legal decision-making to a parent found to have committed a single act of domestic violence was contrary to a child's best interests. HB 2995 rebuilds that framework rather than replacing it outright.

The amended § 25-403.03 defines coercive control as a pattern of violent, threatening, coercive, or emotionally abusive conduct used to dominate or frighten another person. Family-law attorneys who have reviewed the enrolled text describe more than a dozen enumerated categories of qualifying conduct, including threatening to kill or injure a person, monitoring or controlling a person's finances, isolating a person from family and friends, and, notably for this site, stalking, harassment, and the use of surveillance or tracking technology, such as GPS devices or tracking apps. Secondary legal analyses differ on whether the enrolled text lists tracking-technology misuse as a standalone category or as a means of carrying out the other listed coercive conduct, but either way it folds that surveillance activity into the coercive-control framework. That surveillance conduct overlaps directly with what Arizona's criminal code already treats as stalking. A.R.S. § 13-2923 defines stalking to include using an electronic, digital, or global positioning system device to surveil a person or a person's wireless communications without authorization. HB 2995 does not change the stalking statute itself, but it means that GPS or tracking-app misuse a court would already recognize as stalking under § 13-2923 can now also establish coercive control, and therefore domestic violence, in a custody case, even without a separate criminal stalking charge or conviction. For background on how Arizona treats tracking devices generally, see Arizona GPS tracking laws.

The amended statute sets the evidentiary bar at a preponderance of the evidence, the same standard used throughout Arizona civil family-court proceedings, and it states that corroboration from exhibits or the testimony of another witness is not required to establish domestic violence. The statute also permits a court to consider other acts of domestic violence against any person that tend to prove coercive control, including acts that predate the current case or were previously litigated.

Once a court finds that a parent has committed domestic violence, HB 2995 creates a mandatory rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent legal decision-making or parenting time is contrary to the child's best interests. That presumption overrides Arizona's general statutory preference for joint legal decision-making and substantial parenting time to both parents. The amended law also states the presumption should not be applied to both parents equally, or "mutually," unless the court finds both parents' violence was equally unjustified and equally injurious, a provision aimed at preventing a finding against one parent from being offset by an unequal counter-finding against the other. Whenever domestic violence is alleged, the court must enter detailed written findings on the record, and A.R.S. § 25-404 extends that findings requirement to temporary-orders hearings held before a final custody order is entered. Under HB 2995, those findings are reviewed de novo on appeal, meaning the appellate court independently reviews the trial court's domestic-violence findings rather than deferring to them, a higher level of scrutiny than Arizona appellate courts apply to most factual findings in family court.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

HB 2995's most consequential structural change is procedural rather than definitional. Arizona law already recognized domestic violence as weighing against custody and already created a rebuttable presumption in single-act cases. What the amended § 25-403.03 does is widen the conduct that counts, lower the practical barrier to proving it, and raise the scrutiny applied to a trial court's findings on appeal. Folding coercive control, including surveillance and tracking-technology misuse, into the statutory definition of domestic violence means a pattern of non-physical monitoring and control can now carry the same custody consequences as a single physical act, without a separate criminal conviction and without corroborating evidence beyond the alleged victim's own testimony.

The overlap with Arizona's stalking statute is a genuine crossover worth noting on a site that tracks recording and surveillance law. Conduct that already meets the definition of stalking under A.R.S. § 13-2923, using a GPS device or tracking app to monitor someone without authorization, now does double duty: it can support a criminal stalking case and, independently, a civil finding of coercive control that triggers the custody presumption. That is a meaningful expansion of the legal weight tracking-technology misuse carries in Arizona, separate from any criminal prosecution.

The de novo appellate review standard is also unusual. Arizona appellate courts typically review a trial court's factual findings for abuse of discretion or clear error, a deferential standard. Applying de novo review specifically to domestic-violence findings under § 25-403.03 signals that the legislature wants appellate courts checking these findings independently rather than rubber-stamping a trial judge's read of the evidence. We are not predicting how any particular custody case will be decided under the new framework; the statute is new, and how trial and appellate courts apply the preponderance standard, the coercive-control definition, and the mutual-presumption exception in practice will develop over time.

How This Affects You

If you are involved in an Arizona custody case where domestic violence, including coercive control, has been alleged, the practical starting point is that the amended A.R.S. § 25-403.03 now applies to how the court evaluates that allegation, whether the case is an initial custody proceeding, a temporary-orders hearing under A.R.S. § 25-404, or a later modification under A.R.S. § 25-411. Courts must issue written findings when domestic violence is alleged, and a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, without a corroboration requirement, applies to whether it occurred.

If tracking technology, monitoring apps, or GPS devices are part of what is alleged, that conduct can now be relevant to a coercive-control finding in family court in addition to any separate stalking case under A.R.S. § 13-2923. General information about how Arizona treats tracking devices is available at Arizona GPS tracking laws, and general information about obtaining a civil protective order is available at Arizona restraining order laws.

This is general information about a newly effective Arizona statute, not advice about any individual's case. How a court applies the amended presumption, the coercive-control definition, and the mutual-presumption exception depends on the specific facts and evidence in each matter. For the state's broader custody framework, see Arizona child custody laws, and for how custody interacts with a pending divorce, see Arizona divorce laws.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers Arizona law under HB 2995 and reflects sources verified on July 4, 2026. Laws change and this story is developing; consult a lawyer licensed in Arizona about your specific situation.

Sources

• Arizona State Legislature, HB 2995 Bill Overview and Status (57th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session): https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/83476
• Arizona State Legislature, House Bill 2995, Senate Engrossed bill text: https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/57leg/2R/bills/HB2995S.pdf
• Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-403.03, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse (current text): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/25/00403-03.htm
• Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-404, Temporary Orders (current text): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/25/00404.htm
• Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-411, Modification of Legal Decision-Making or Parenting Time (current text): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/25/00411.htm
• Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2923, Stalking (current text): https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02923.htm

Related articles

• Arizona child custody laws
• Arizona restraining order laws
• Arizona GPS tracking laws
• Arizona divorce laws
• Child custody laws by state

---

Last updated: 2026-07-04. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-04.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Alec and Lydia Act?

The Alec and Lydia Act is Arizona House Bill 2995, signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs on June 22, 2026. It amends A.R.S. §§ 25-403.03, 25-404, and 25-411 to add coercive control to the legal definition of domestic violence and strengthen the custody presumption against a parent found to have committed domestic violence.

When did HB 2995 take effect?

HB 2995 carried an emergency clause and took effect immediately upon Governor Hobbs' signature on June 22, 2026, rather than on Arizona's general effective-date schedule.

What is coercive control under the new Arizona law?

Under the amended A.R.S. § 25-403.03, coercive control is a pattern of violent, threatening, coercive, or emotionally abusive conduct used to dominate or frighten another person. It includes conduct such as stalking, harassment, monitoring finances, isolating a person from family and friends, and the use of surveillance or tracking technology, such as GPS devices or tracking apps.

Does GPS tracking count as domestic violence in Arizona custody cases now?

Using surveillance or tracking technology, including GPS devices or tracking apps, to monitor a person without authorization is listed as a form of coercive control under the amended A.R.S. § 25-403.03. That conduct can also independently meet Arizona's definition of stalking under A.R.S. § 13-2923.

What evidentiary standard applies to domestic violence claims under HB 2995?

The amended statute establishes domestic violence, including coercive control, by a preponderance of the evidence, and it does not require corroboration from exhibits or the testimony of another witness.

How does the custody presumption work under the amended law?

If a court finds a parent has committed domestic violence, there is a rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent legal decision-making or parenting time is contrary to the child's best interests. This presumption overrides Arizona's general preference for joint legal decision-making and substantial parenting time to both parents, and it is not applied mutually to both parents unless the court finds their conduct was equally unjustified and injurious.

Which Arizona statutes did HB 2995 amend?

HB 2995 amends A.R.S. § 25-403.03 (domestic violence and child abuse), A.R.S. § 25-404 (temporary orders), and A.R.S. § 25-411 (modification of legal decision-making or parenting time).

Who was the Alec and Lydia Act named after?

The law is named for Alec and Lydia Mater, two Arizona children killed by their father, Brock Mater, in May 2024 during a period of unsupervised, court-ordered parenting time.