HB 2296 — shared parenting time; presumption; prohibition
Last action — Senate Second Reading
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed House
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 57th Legislature - First Regular Session. It reached “Passed House” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there are no live odds of enactment. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
243 added · 277 removedPlain-language change summary
The recent changes to House Bill 2296 clarify how courts will determine parenting time and legal decision-making in child custody cases. The new version emphasizes the importance of shared parenting time while still allowing for the court to consider the best interests of the child, including their relationships and adjustments to life. This matters because it aims to ensure that children maintain strong connections with both parents, promoting healthier family dynamics after separation or divorce.
HOUSEHouse FLOOREngrossed AMENDMENTshared EXPLANATIONparenting Billtime; Number:
HBpresumption; 2296 Fink Floor Amendment • Changes the factors the court must consider regarding the best interest of the child when determining parenting time to:
1)prohibition prioritizingState theof childArizona andHouse theirof primaryRepresentatives caregiver'sFifty-seventh bond;Legislature First Regular Session HOUSE BILL 2296 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 25-403, 25-403.01, 25-403.02 AND 25-411, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;
2)RELATING preservationTO ofPARENTING theTIME. child's existing schedule;
and(TEXT 3)OF theBILL wishesBEGINS ofON theNEXT child,PAGE) if- thei child- isH.B. of suitable age and maturity.
•2296 IncludesBe additionalit factorsenacted by the courtLegislature mayof considerthe whenState makingof aArizona: parenting time determination including:
1) instances of domestic violence, abuse or neglect;
2) if a parent has a history of substance abuse;
3) if a parent has been convicted of false reporting of abuse or neglect;
and 4) if a parent has intentionally misled the court.
• Specifies the court must make specified findings on the record when determining temporary and final orders in a parenting time case.
• Removes language requiring that a parent, who is not granted legal decision- making, has meaningful contact with the child.
• Removes language requiring parents to submit proposed parenting plans to the court and that requires the court to maximize each parents parenting time.
• Specifies serious danger to the child is required to restrict a parent's parenting time rights.
• Removes language allowing the court to determine additional factors necessary to promote the best interest of the child.
Amendment explanation prepared by S.
Robinson Phone Number 6-3273 jh 2/21/2025 Fifty-seventh Legislature Fink First Regular Session H.B.
2296 FINK FLOOR AMENDMENT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AMENDMENTS TO H.B.
2296 (Reference to printed bill) Amendment instruction key:
[GREEN UNDERLINING IN BRACKETS] indicates text added to statute or previously enacted session law.
[Green underlining in brackets] indicates text added to new session law or text restoring existing law.
[GREEN STRIKEOUT IN BRACKETS] indicates new text removed from statute or previously enacted session law.
[Green strikeout in brackets] indicates text removed from existing statute, previously enacted session law or new session law.
<<Green carets>> indicate a section added to the bill.
<<Green strikeout in carets>> indicates a section removed from the bill.
The bill as proposed to be amended is reprinted as follows:
The court shall determine [legallegal decision-making and]and parenting time, either originally or on petition for modification, in accordance with the best interests of the child.
[1.1.
House8. Amendments to H.B.
2296 8.
Whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse or neglect under section 13-2907.02.]13-2907.02. [1.
1.
PRESERVATIONTHE INTERACTION AND INTERRELATIONSHIP OF THE CHILD WITH THE CHILD'S EXISTINGPARENTS, SCHEDULESIBLINGS TOAND MAINTAINANY STABILITY.OTHER PERSON WHO MAY SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE CHILD'S BEST INTEREST.
IF THE CHILDPRESERVATION IS OF SUITABLE AGE AND MATURITY, THE WISHESCHILD'S OFEXISTING THESCHEDULE CHILD AS TO PARENTINGMAINTAIN TIME.]STABILITY. B.
IN4. MAKING A DETERMINATION REGARDING PARENTING TIME, THE COURT SHALL NOT PRESUME THAT A PARENTING PLAN THAT REFLECTS SHARED PARENTING TIME BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.
[THE COURT MAY CONSIDER ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WHEN MAKING A PARENTING TIME DETERMINATION:
1.
2.- 1 - H.B.
2296 5.
IF THE CHILD IS OF SUITABLE AGE AND MATURITY, THE WISHES OF THE CHILD AS TO PARENTING TIME.
Show all 85 changed lines (45 more)
6.
THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE CHILD.
7.
3.B.
IN MAKING A DETERMINATION REGARDING PARENTING TIME, THE COURT MAY CONSIDER ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WHEN MAKING A PARENTING TIME DETERMINATION:
1.
2.
WHETHER ONE PARENT INTENTIONALLY MISLED THE COURT TO CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY DELAY, TO INCREASE THE COST OF LITIGATION OR TO PERSUADE THE COURT TO GIVE A PARENTING TIME PREFERENCE TO THAT PARENT.
3.
THE CHILD'S ADJUSTMENT TO HOME, SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY.
WHETHER ONE PARENT INTENTIONALLY MISLED THE COURTMENTAL TOAND CAUSEPHYSICAL ANHEALTH UNNECESSARY DELAY, TO INCREASE THE COST OF LITIGATIONALL ORINDIVIDUALS TOINVOLVED. PERSUADE THE COURT TO GIVE A PARENTING TIME PREFERENCE TO THAT PARENT.] B.
B.
In a contested [legallegal decision-making or]or parenting time case, [WHENWHEN DETERMINING BOTH TEMPORARY ORDERS AND FINAL ORDERS,]ORDERS, the court shall make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the child.
<<Sec.Sec.
In determining the level of decision-making that is in the child's best interests, the court shall consider the factors prescribed in section 25-403, [subsection]subsection [SUBSECTIONS]SUBSECTIONS A [ANDAND B]B and all of the following:
-2-3. House Amendments to H.B.
2296 3.
[D.- 2 - H.B.
A2296 parentD. who is not granted sole or joint legal decision-making is entitled to reasonable parenting time to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the parent unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time would endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.]>> Sec.
A parent who is not granted sole or joint legal decision-making is entitled to reasonable parenting time to ensure that the minor child has substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the parent unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time would endanger the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.
Sec.
Parenting plans [A.A.
The court shall not prefer a parent's proposed plan because of the parent's or child's gender.]gender. [C.] [A.] Parenting plans shall include at least the following:
C.
A.
Parenting plans shall include at least the following:
[D.]D. [B.] If the parents are unable to agree on any element to be included in a parenting plan, the court shall determine that -3- House Amendments to H.B.
2296B. element.
[TheIf courtthe mayparents determine other factors that are necessaryunable to promoteagree andon protectany theelement emotionalto andbe physicalincluded healthin ofa theparenting child.]plan, [INthe MAKINGcourt Ashall DETERMINATIONdetermine REGARDINGthat PARENTINGelement. TIME, THE COURT SHALL NOT PRESUME THAT A PARENTING PLAN THAT REFLECTS SHARED PARENTING TIME BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.] [E.] [C.] Shared legal decision-making does not necessarily mean equal parenting time.
Sec.The court may determine other factors that are necessary to promote and protect the emotional and physical health of the child.
E.
C.
Shared legal decision-making does not necessarily mean equal parenting time.
- 3 - H.B.
2296 Sec.
A military parent who has legal decision-making or parenting time pursuant to an existing court order has received notice from military -4-leadership Housethat Amendmentsthe tomilitary H.B.parent will deploy or mobilize in the near future.
2296 leadership that the military parent will deploy or mobilize in the near future.
E.- 4 - H.B.
2296 E.
The court may modify an order granting or denying parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the best interest of the child, -5-but Housethe Amendmentscourt toshall H.B.not restrict a parent's parenting time rights unless it finds that the parenting time would endanger seriously ENDANGER the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.
2296IN butGRANTING theOR court- shall5 not- restrictH.B. a parent's parenting time rights unless it finds that the parenting time would [endanger] [seriously] [ENDANGER] the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.
IN2296 GRANTING OR DENYING A REQUESTED PARENTING TIME MODIFICATION, THE COURT SHALL NOT PRESUME THAT A PARENTING TIME SCHEDULE THAT REFLECTS SHARED PARENTING TIME BETWEEN THE PARTIES IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.
[N.N.
Subsection L of this section does not apply if the requested relief is for the modification or clarification of parenting time and not for a change of legal decision-making.]decision-making. Enroll and engross to conform Amend title to conform LISA FINK 2296FloorFINK2.docx 02/20/2025 2:49 PM C:
LAT- -6-6 -
Show all 85 changed rows (45 more)
View plain text versions (4)
- Engrossed House Engrossed Version Current pdf
- Amended HOUSE - Floor Amend to Bill - Fink - passed pdf
- Amended HOUSE - Floor Amend to Engrossed Bill - Fink - passed pdf
- Introduced Introduced Version pdf
Action History
-
Senate Second Reading
-
Senate First Reading
-
Transmit to Senate
-
PASSED
-
DPA
-
PASSED
-
DPA
-
PASSED
-
DPA
-
House Placed on Consent Calendar
-
DP
-
House Second Reading
-
House First Reading.
Sponsors
- Rachel Keshel · Cosponsor
- Lisa Fink · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 91 not signed on · 21 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Lisa Fink Republican
Co-sponsors (1)
- Rachel Keshel Republican
Not signed on (91)
91 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 91 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democrat | 8 | 18 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 29 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 37 | 21 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 62% | 35% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (60)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron Márquez | Democrat | Nay |
| Alma Hernandez | Democrat | Yea |
| Anna Abeytia | Democrat | Nay |
| Betty J Villegas | Democrat | Nay |
| Brian Garcia | Democrat | Nay |
| Cesar Aguilar | Democrat | Nay |
| Christopher Mathis | Democrat | Nay |
| Consuelo Hernandez | Democrat | Yea |
| Elda Luna-Nájera | Democrat | Yea |
| Janeen Connolly | Democrat | Nay |
| Junelle Cavero | Democrat | Not Voting |
| Kevin Volk | Democrat | Nay |
| Lorena Austin | Democrat | Nay |
| Lupe Contreras | Democrat | Yea |
| Lydia Hernandez | Democrat | Yea |
| Mae Peshlakai | Democrat | Yea |
| Mariana Sandoval | Democrat | Nay |
| Myron Tsosie | Democrat | Yea |
| Nancy Gutierrez | Democrat | Nay |
| Oscar De Los Santos | Democrat | Nay |
| Patty Contreras | Democrat | Nay |
| Quantá Crews | Democrat | Nay |
| Sarah Liguori | Democrat | Yea |
| Seth Blattman | Democrat | Nay |
| Stacey Travers | Democrat | Nay |
| Stephanie Simacek | Democrat | Nay |
| Stephanie Stahl Hamilton | Democrat | Nay |
| Alexander Kolodin | Republican | Nay |
| Beverly Pingerelli | Republican | Yea |
| Chris Lopez | Republican | Yea |
| David Livingston | Republican | Yea |
| David Marshall, Sr. | Republican | Yea |
| Gail Griffin | Republican | Not Voting |
| James Taylor | Republican | Yea |
| Jeff Weninger | Republican | Yea |
| John Gillette | Republican | Yea |
| Joseph Chaplik | Republican | Yea |
| Julie Willoughby | Republican | Yea |
| Justin Olson | Republican | Yea |
| Justin Wilmeth | Republican | Yea |
| Khyl Powell | Republican | Yea |
| Laurin Hendrix | Republican | Yea |
| Leo Biasiucci | Republican | Yea |
| Lisa Fink | Republican | Yea |
| Lupe Diaz | Republican | Yea |
| Matt Gress | Republican | Yea |
| Michael Carbone | Republican | Yea |
| Michael Way | Republican | Yea |
| Michele Peña | Republican | Yea |
| Neal Carter | Republican | Nay |
| Nick Kupper | Republican | Nay |
| Pamela Carter | Republican | Yea |
| Quang H Nguyen | Republican | Yea |
| Rachel Keshel | Republican | Yea |
| Ralph Heap | Republican | Yea |
| Selina Bliss | Republican | Yea |
| Steve Montenegro | Republican | Yea |
| Teresa Martinez | Republican | Yea |
| Tony Rivero | Republican | Yea |
| Walt Blackman | Republican | Yea |
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Roll call published as PDF — view source.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors HB 2296?
- HB 2296 is sponsored by Rachel Keshel (Republican) and Lisa Fink (Republican).
- What is the current status of HB 2296?
- This bill died with 57th Legislature - First Regular Session. It reached “Passed House” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
- Where can I track HB 2296?
- Track HB 2296 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 2296
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 2296
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →