By Staff Reporter |

New legislation imposing domestic violence protections in family court apply in all active cases regardless of when the case was originally filed.

State Representative Lisa Fink (R-LD27) issued a notice to make courts and legal partners aware of the applicability of protections imposed by the law she sponsored and Gov. Katie Hobbs signed, HB 2995. 

Fink says Arizonans have reported issues with accessing the law’s protections due to a misunderstanding among some that the law only applies to cases filed after the law went into effect last month. 

“That is not how the law was written, and it is not what the Legislature intended,” said Fink. “The emergency clause was included so the law would take effect immediately and apply to every active case before the court. Families do not lose these protections simply because their case began before June 22.”

HB 2995, known as the Alec and Lydia Act, overhauled courts’ framework for legal decision-making and parenting time cases by prioritizing domestic violence findings, expanding what qualifies as domestic violence, and requiring the court to issue detailed written findings of domestic violence. 

The law established that the safety and well-being of the child and domestic violence victim serve as the highest priority in custody matters, and prohibits courts from requiring domestic violence victims to prove the severity and frequency of abuse to justify restrictions. 

The law also requires courts to disregard as irrelevant the child’s absence at the time of the domestic violence, the child’s unawareness that domestic violence occurred, and the child’s preference for maintaining contact with the domestic violence perpetrator.

Additionally, courts may not order domestic violence victims to join their abusers in any treatment or counseling program. 

HB 2995 applies when the court is actively considering legal decision-making or parenting time. This includes temporary-order proceedings and requests to modify existing orders.

The legislation was named after Alec and Lydia Mater, siblings killed in a murder-suicide by their estranged father, Brock Mater, during an unsupervised custody visit in May 2024. 

At the time of the crime, Mater was experiencing a psychotic episode. In the months prior, he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was undergoing mental health treatment. The court had documented his history of domestic violence. 

Alec and Lydia’s mother, Hope Hooton, described during a hearing on the bill earlier this year all the evidence that had been provided in court of Mater’s abuse: physical and sexual violence including strangulation, thrown objects, and stabbings, along with financial, verbal, and emotional abuse to include withholding money and food, and forcing exercise.

“In family court, mothers are often told, ‘He was abusive to you, not the children,’ but research shows this assumption is dangerously wrong,” said Hooton. “The court did not fully evaluate strangulation, coercive control, suicidal or filicidal ideation, and acute psychiatric instability together before granting unsupervised parenting time.”

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Valenzuela granted Mater equal parenting time and joint decision-making. Valenzuela disputed the evidence presented had proved Mater to be a danger to his children, since no police reports existed of abuse directed toward the children. 

Hooton advocated for the bill’s passage, saying it aligns with current research-based understanding that abuse of a parent serves as a warning sign to children.

“My children were not killed because of prior child abuse. They were killed in the context of domestic violence, coercive control, mental health crisis, and loss of control,” said Hooton. 

Alec was seven years old, and Lydia was six.

“This law is not only about preventing the worst possible outcome, including the death of a child. Children can be profoundly harmed by coercive control, emotional abuse, intimidation and post-separation abuse, even when no physical assault occurs. The Alec and Lydia Act is intended to protect their physical, mental and emotional well-being before that harm becomes irreversible,” said Fink. “The safety and well-being of children and victims of domestic violence must come first. That is the purpose of the Alec and Lydia Act, and its protections are in effect now.”

Few opposed HB 2995’s passage: Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20) and Reps. John Gillette (R-LD30), Alexander Kolodin (R-LD03), Justin Olson (R-LD10), and Cody Reim (R-LD03). 

Kolodin explained during the House floor vote that he opposed the bill due to concerns that it would cause rampant and baseless allegations of abuse between feuding spouses. 

Kolodin read some provisions of the bill constituting abuse that he alleged were especially harmful: suicidal ideations; firearm cleaning; monitoring or regulating financial activity, which Kolodin said could include reading the family’s credit card statement; demeaning, degrading, or humiliating words or actions; threats to make reports to law enforcement, which Kolodin said could include an abuse victim announcing intent to call police if their abuser hits them again; threats of civil litigation, which Kolodin said could include calling for divorce; and jeopardization of immigration status, which Kolodin said could include refusing to marry a significant other due to their noncitizenship. 

“The language of what constitutes abuse in this bill is so broad that it will result in both parents in a family law proceeding almost always being labeled as an abuser,” said Kolodin. “This bill takes everybody in a marriage relationship and labels them as the abuser, forces them to fight to the death at the expense of their reputation and children, as to who is the worse abuser, and it will cause even worse chaos in our family law system. It will destroy families, tear them apart, and cause them lifelong animosity that will do permanent damage to Arizona’s children.”

Olson agreed. He noted that the bill may disincentivize couples from joining their lives too much, like mixing finances. 

Fink dismissed the concerns, citing the legislation’s requirement that judges find a “pattern of violent, threatening, or coercive conduct.” Fink said the judicial framework was similar to law enforcement screening tools for domestic violence. 

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.