A bill advancing at the State Capitol would change how Arizona judges weigh domestic violence in family law cases, elevating a child’s safety to the highest priority when allegations of abuse surface. House Bill 2995, known in legislative discussions as the Alec and Lydia Act, seeks to shift the presumption in custody disputes so that a finding of domestic violence makes it unlikely a parent will receive custody or unsupervised visitation unless that parent proves otherwise.
The legislation is driven in part by the grief of a mother whose children, Alec and Lydia, were killed by their father in 2024. Speaking outside the Capitol as she urged lawmakers to act, she said the bill is meant to prevent similar tragedies. “This bill is really to make sure that what happened to my family doesn’t happen to any other Arizona family,” she told lawmakers and reporters. She now carries a memorial tattoo on her right arm — Pikachu for her son and a unicorn for her daughter, with stars representing the phrase her children used with her: “I love you to the last planet and back.”
A mother speaks outside the Arizona State Capitol as she urges lawmakers to change custody laws after losing her children.
The deaths that prompted this effort were violent and swift: the children were shot and killed by their father in 2024, and he then died by suicide. At the time, the father had been granted joint unsupervised custody despite a documented history of domestic violence, a fact the mother and supporters cite as central to the need for legal change. Photographs used by advocates and lawmakers included police scene tape and the father’s booking photo, underscoring how quickly family court outcomes can translate into community tragedies.
Police tape lines a Phoenix-area scene alongside a mugshot of the childrens' father; the fatal case has spurred legislation to prioritize domestic violence in custody decisions.
What the bill would change
- Presumption shift: Under the bill’s proposed framework, when a court determines a parent has committed domestic violence, judges would be required to start from the presumption that awarding custody or parenting time to that parent is not in the child’s best interests. That presumption would place the burden on the abusive parent to demonstrate, with clear evidence, that custody or unsupervised visitation would be safe.
- Higher evidentiary requirement for parenting time: The measure raises the evidentiary bar for any custody or unsupervised visits to a high legal standard; even supervised visits would require proof that the child would be safe in the parent’s care.
- Priority of safety: Currently, judges in Arizona exercise broad discretion in custody decisions and weigh multiple factors when determining what serves a child’s best interests. The proposed statute would narrow that discretion by requiring courts to give the highest priority to the personal safety and the physical, mental and emotional well-being of both the child and any adult victim of domestic violence.
Expanded definition of domestic violence Lawmakers drafting the measure expanded the legal definition of domestic violence to explicitly include coercive control — described in the bill as a pattern of violent, threatening, coercive or emotionally abusive conduct. The legislation lists 15 behaviors that may meet the definition of coercive control, and it names several specific examples: threatening to kill or injure someone, monitoring or restricting financial activity, stalking and harassment, and using surveillance or tracking technology to monitor a person’s movements. Those examples are presented as illustrations of the sort of patterns the bill seeks to capture when courts evaluate safety concerns in custody disputes.
Court procedures and evidentiary changes To establish a claim of domestic violence in family court under the bill, judges would be permitted to consider a broad range of documentary and testimonial evidence: law enforcement reports, Department of Child Safety files, medical records, shelter records and witness testimony. Importantly, a finding could be made by a preponderance of the evidence, and the bill clarifies that corroborating exhibits or additional witness testimony would not be required to satisfy that standard. The changes aim to broaden the ways courts can evaluate patterns of harm and coercion beyond criminal convictions or formal restraining orders, reflecting advocates’ concerns that many abusive behaviors are not always litigated in criminal court.
Possible court orders and protections for children and victims If a court finds that a parent committed domestic violence, the bill authorizes a range of precautions designed to protect children and victims. Options listed include:
- requiring child exchanges to occur in protected locations,
- limiting the abusive parent’s parenting time,
- mandating supervised visits and ordering the abusive parent to pay the costs of supervision,
- suspending access to the child entirely,
- requiring the abusive parent to participate in a domestic violence treatment program, and
- keeping the child’s address confidential.
The proposed law would also forbid judges from compelling a victim of domestic violence to participate in any treatment program, counseling or forensic assessment alongside the parent who committed the abuse — a provision supporters say acknowledges the power imbalance and potential retraumatization that can occur when victims are required to engage jointly with their abusers.
Advocacy and personal impact The mother whose loss galvanized this effort worked with lawmakers on the bill’s language and has taken an active role at the Capitol, pressing for passage and for the safety measures it would create. “When I hear these cases happening over and over again, I have to step up and do something because I feel like it’s my responsibility now to keep their legacy alive by doing this,” she said. She and other supporters have framed the Alec and Lydia Act as a legal correction that would make child safety the central, determinative consideration when courts confront substantiated domestic abuse allegations.
Supporters point to the specific facts of the fatal case — joint unsupervised custody being granted despite a documented history of domestic violence — as evidence that current judicial discretion can sometimes produce outcomes that put children and survivors at risk. Photographs and imagery used by advocates at the Capitol, including police tape and booking photos, were intended to illustrate that link and to make the consequences of family court decisions visible to lawmakers and the public.
Legislative process and next steps Advocates and family law stakeholders will continue to debate the bill’s specifics as it moves through committee hearings and potential floor votes. The bill’s movement through the legislative process will involve additional scrutiny over its language, the evidentiary standards it sets, and the range of judicial remedies it authorizes. Meanwhile, the mother and others affected by domestic violence are urging lawmakers to approve the measure so future custody disputes can more directly account for patterns of harm and coercion. For individuals seeking help or information about domestic violence resources in Arizona, state agencies maintain directories and services intended to assist victims and their families.
Social Media Reaction on X Discussion of the Alec and Lydia Act on X has been relatively limited beyond local news shares and reposts of the mother’s Capitol appearance. A small number of Arizona-based domestic violence awareness accounts have amplified calls for passage, but no major verified initiatives, viral campaigns, or high-profile responses from elected officials were observed at the time of reporting.