Environment
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
StateArizonaEnacted
HB 2995: domestic relations; domestic violence
Lisa Fink
HB 2995 status: Enacted — Signed by Governor (updated Jun 22, 2026).
Source
LegiScan
Confidence
High
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
01
What this bill does
Official summary alongside an AI-generated read on where it stands and why.
Overall Score
83OUT OF 100
Score:83/100 civic fit
Risk:Low Risk
Impact:Moderate Impact 75/100
Constitutionality90%
Bipartisan80%
Public opinion85%
Bill summary
What changes
The 'Alec and Lydia Act' amends Arizona statutes to strengthen protections in custody cases involving domestic violence, introducing a definition of 'coercive control' and mandatory rebuttable presumptions against custody for perpetrators.
Who is affected
Parents involved in family law proceedings, their children, family court judges, and social services agencies.
Requirements and enforcement
Courts must make specific written findings on the record regarding domestic violence, and perpetrators must meet higher burdens of proof to retain custodial rights.
Costs and funding
Requires litigants to pay for supervised parenting time and potential perpetrator treatment; increased judicial/administrative burden.
When it takes effect
Immediate effect via emergency clause as of June 22, 2026.
Potential benefits
Enhanced protections for domestic violence survivors and children; clearer standards for judicial decision-making.
Risks and tradeoffs
Potential for increased litigation duration and the challenge of consistently applying new evidentiary standards for coercive control.
What is still unknown
The exact impact on court caseloads and the availability of sufficient supervised parenting time resources.
02
Impact analysis
✦ AI analysisModeled effects across six domains, estimated from bill text and comparable legislation.
Economy
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Society
Positive outlook
85%
Benefits
- Prioritizes child and victim safety as the primary factor in custody rulings.
- Establishes a rebuttable presumption against perpetrators of domestic violence in custody cases.
- Formalizes the definition of 'coercive control' to recognize non-physical abuse.
Risks
- Increases the burden of proof required for some domestic violence perpetrators to regain access.
- Could potentially lead to protracted litigation regarding the definition of coercive control.
- Places additional financial costs on perpetrators required to pay for supervised visits.
Technology Industry
No direct effect
Neutral — no direct effect identified.
Benefits
- No material direct effect identified.
Risks
- No material direct effect identified.
Civic Accountability
Positive outlook
80%
Benefits
- Requires courts to issue specific written findings on the record for domestic violence allegations.
- Mandates thorough descriptions of evidence justifying or preventing domestic violence findings.
- Ensures consistent application of domestic violence considerations across different family law judges.
Risks
- Increases the administrative workload for family court judges and staff.
- Requires judges to navigate complex evidence from multiple agencies and sources.
- May lead to increased demand for court-appointed experts to assess domestic violence evidence.
Public Health & Safety
Positive outlook
85%
Benefits
- Directly enhances safety for victims by enabling confidential address orders.
- Protects children by prohibiting overnight visits for domestic violence perpetrators where risks exist.
- Enables courts to order mandatory perpetrator intervention programs and alcohol/substance testing.
Risks
- Requires effective coordination between courts, law enforcement, and social service agencies.
- Relies on the availability of qualified third-party supervisors for parenting time.
- May leave gaps in safety if community resources for batterer intervention are underfunded.
03
How trustworthy & consequential it is
Sourcing already shown above, this is what the analysis found worth flagging.
Source
LegiScan
Official bill text or data from LegiScan.
Confidence
High
Information is complete and verified.
Analysis basis
LegiScan full bill text
Source used for this bill's analysis.
Source note
Requires courts to navigate and define 'coercive control', which may lead to varying legal standards.
Analysis scope
Does not account for the availability of funding for mandatory perpetrator intervention programs.
04
Where it stands
Official recordSigned by Governor
- IntroducedComplete
- CommitteeComplete
- Chamber votesComplete
- Final agreementComplete
- GovernorComplete
- EnactedComplete
05
How it affects your district
✦ Personalized
Set your location
Add your district to see how this bill may affect your community and who to contact.
Your Representatives
Your representatives appear here once you add your location.
06
Take action
Contact your representatives
Let them know how you feel about this bill.
Share your view
Join the discussion and see what others are saying.
Track this bill
Stay updated on progress and changes.