Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3602

Section 13-3602(I) allows a defendant to request a hearing while an order of protection is in effect.

State v. Figueroa · filed 2019-04-04(I)

This argument is wholly without merit. Arizona Rule of Protective Order Procedure 38(a) provides that “[a]t any time while a protective order . . . is in effect, a defendant may request one hearing in writing.” See also A.R.S. § 13-3602(I).

Section 13-3602 gives a party one hearing to contest an order of protection and an appeal to the superior court.

Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security · filed 2007-12-11(I), (P)

Section 13-3602 sets forth the proper procedure to contest an order of protection, entitling a party to one hearing and an appeal to the superior court.

Section 13-3602(N) permits enforcement of a domestic-violence order of protection through prosecution for disobeying a court order under § 13-2810(A)(2).

Douglass v. State · filed 2008-04-10(N)

Indeed, A.R.S. § 13-3602 specifically provides that a domestic-violence order of protection may be enforced by prosecution under A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2) for disobeying the lawful order of a court.

Section 13-3602(E) permits an order of protection when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year.

Glennon v. Harvey · filed 2024-04-04(E)

By statute, an order of protection may be issued if the court determines there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year. See A.R.S. § 13-3602(E). ... The court properly found that Harvey trespassed on the property and, given the prior marriage, that was domestic violence.

Section 13-3602(I) permits a court to continue an order of protection after a hearing if the plaintiff proves the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Gunderson v. Gunderson · filed 2018-06-28(I)

The court may continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 13-3602(I); Ariz. R. Prot. Order P. 38(g). ... Accordingly, we presume Paul failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Daryl might commit an act of domestic violence or had committed an act of domestic violence within the preceding year. Without a transcript of the proceeding, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in resolving credibility issues and quashing the order of protection.

Section 13-3602(I) permits a court to continue an order of protection after a hearing if the plaintiff proves the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Righetti v. Juarbe · filed 2018-10-11(I)

The court may continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 13-3602(H) entitles a party restrained by an order of protection to one hearing to contest it.

Vera v. Hon rogers/chaidez · filed 2018-12-04(H)

Pursuant to both A.R.S. § 13-3602(H) and Arizona Rule of Protective Order Procedure ... (“ARPOP”) 38, a party restrained by an order of protection is only entitled to one hearing to contest the order.

Section 13-3602(L) requires a prompt hearing to contest an order of protection and permits a continuance for good cause; a pending criminal investigation did not require a month’s delay when it would not reduce the respondent’s risk of self-incrimination.

King v. King · filed 2021-11-09(L)

A hearing to contest an order of protection “shall be held within ten days from the date requested unless the court finds good cause to continue the hearing. . .. The hearing shall be held at the earliest possible time.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(L). ... Because Ryan’s risk of incrimination was the same whether the hearing was held as scheduled or one month later, the court did not err in denying the motion to continue.

Section 13-3602(E) allows a contested order of protection to remain in effect when the plaintiff proves that the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year, or within a longer period for good cause.

Kitchel v. Kitchel · filed 2021-11-30(E)(1), (E)(2)

For a contested order of protection to remain in effect, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[t]he ... defendant may commit an act of domestic violence” or “has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year or within a longer period of time if the court finds that good cause exists to consider a longer period.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(1), (2); Ariz. R. Protective Order P. 38(f)(3).

A contested order of protection remains in effect if the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year, or within a longer period for good cause.

Martinez v. Colburt · filed 2022-02-15(E)(1), (E)(2)

For a contested order of protection to remain in effect, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[t]he defendant may commit an act of domestic violence” or “has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year or within a longer period of time if the court finds that good cause exists to consider a longer period.”

Section 13-3602(L) requires the plaintiff to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence to continue an order of protection after a contested hearing.

Zakrezewski v. Zakrezewski · filed 2024-07-11(L)

If the defendant requests a hearing, however, the court may continue the order of protection after a contested hearing only if the plaintiff “prove[s] the case by a preponderance of the evidence.” A.R.S. § 12-3602(L); Ariz. R. Prot. Ord. P. 38(a), (g)(3).

Section 13-3602 permits a court to continue an order of protection after a hearing when evidence supports one qualifying act of domestic violence.

Caudill v. Nelson · filed 2025-02-25(E)(2), (L)

Because record evidence supports the court’s finding that a single act of harassment occurred, the court was justified in keeping the order of protection in place.

Section 13-3602(L) allows a court to continue an order of protection after a hearing if the plaintiff proves the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Nunez v. Flores · filed 2026-03-25(L)

The court may continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves their case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 13-3602 entitles a respondent to a prompt hearing on request to contest an ex parte order of protection; the hearing must occur within ten court business days unless continued for good cause.

Stewart v. Floyd · filed 2026-04-13(L)

Although A.R.S. § 13-3602 authorizes a court to issue an OOP ex parte, that statute and applicable court rules also entitle the respondent, upon request, to a prompt hearing to contest the OOP. The hearing must be held within ten court business days, and can be continued only upon a showing of good cause.

Section 13-3602(L) entitles a person under an order of protection to a hearing upon written request.

Calbert v. Parsons · filed 2025-12-17(L)

Parsons apparently requested an evidentiary hearing on Calbert’s petition after being served with the ex parte protective order, as was his right. See A.R.S. §13-3602(L) (“a party who is under an order of protection or who is restrained from contacting the other party is entitled to one hearing on written request”). The superior court here followed these procedures by setting a joint hearing on both cases for April 7, 2025. On this record, Parsons has shown no reversible error.

Section 13-3602(E) requires reasonable cause to issue an ex parte protective order, a lower standard than the preponderance of the evidence required at a contested hearing.

Kamma v. Gaun · filed 2025-12-18(E)

Thus, we hold that the reasonable cause required at an ex parte protective order hearing is a different, and lower, standard than the preponderance of the evidence standard required at a contested hearing.

A protective order may remain in effect after a contested hearing if the petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence a qualifying act of domestic violence or a risk of future domestic violence.

Rezoana v. Lavey · filed 2026-05-13(E)(1), (2)

For a protective order to remain in effect after a contested hearing, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent either committed an act of domestic violence within the preceding year, or longer if there is good cause to look beyond one year, or that the respondent may commit domestic violence in the future.

Section 13-3602(C)(5) allows a court to consider a prior, expired order of protection when deciding whether to issue another order.

Cardoso v. Soldo · filed 2012-05-29(C)(5)

In determining whether to issue an order of protection, the requesting party must advise a court whether a prior order of protection has been issued concerning “the conduct that is sought to be restrained.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(C)(5). Thus, the issuance of a prior, albeit expired, order of protection is a circumstance a court is entitled to consider in deciding whether to issue a subsequent order of protection.

Section 13-3602(G)(6) gives the court discretion to grant protective relief it deems necessary and proper under the circumstances.

Shurts v. Shurts · filed 2015-04-28(G)(6)

Because the superior court is authorized to grant the relief that it deems necessary and proper under the circumstances, see A.R.S. § 13–3602(G)(6), the scope of an order of protection is within its discretion.

Section 13-3602(E) permits an order of protection when there is reasonable cause to believe a person has committed or may commit domestic violence; an order based on a predicate offense the record does not establish must be vacated.

Kroon v. Kroon · filed 2016-07-21(E)

An order of protection may issue if there is reasonable cause to believe a person has committed an act of domestic violence or may commit such an act. A.R.S. § 13-3602(E). ... Because the record did not establish that predicate domestic violence offense, we vacate the order of protection and the simultaneously issued Brady Notice.

Section 13-3602(E) requires an order of protection when the court finds reasonable cause to believe the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year.

Salazar v. Guevara · filed 2019-03-28(E)

On the filing of a verified petition pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-3602(A), the court shall issue an order ... of protection when it finds reasonable cause to believe the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed such an act within the past year. A.R.S. § 13-3602(E). ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling, as we must, the court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the order of protection as to Mother and E.G. See Mahar, 230 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 2.

Section 13-3602(E) permits an order of protection when the court has reasonable cause to believe the respondent may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year.

Priddy v. Moore · filed 2021-03-11(E)

To issue the order of protection, the court only needed to find reasonable cause to believe that Father may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year; domestic violence is broadly defined to include child abuse.

Section 13-3602 requires reasonable cause to issue an order of protection and permits its continuation after a hearing if the plaintiff proves the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2016-03-22(E)(2), (I)

A court shall issue an order of protection if it determines there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year. ... The court may continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 13-3602(I) permits a court to continue an order of protection after a hearing if the plaintiff proves the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Leone v. Taylor · filed 2016-06-23(I)

The court may ... continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 13-3602(I); Ariz. R. Prot. Order P. 38(g). ... Without a transcript of the proceeding, Taylor has not shown the court abused its discretion by granting and continuing the order of protection.

Section 13-3602 requires reasonable cause to issue an order of protection and proof by a preponderance of the evidence to continue it after a hearing.

Fordyce v. Nelson · filed 2018-06-05(E), (I)

A court shall issue an order of protection if it finds reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year. A.R.S. § 13-3602(E) (2018). The court may continue the protective order after a hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence. A.R.S. § 13-3602(I); Ariz. R. Prot. Order P. 38(g).

Section 13-3602(E) requires a court to issue an order of protection when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant recently committed or may commit domestic violence.

Crane v. Crane · filed 2024-02-01(E)(1), (2)

A court must issue a protective order if there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant recently committed or might commit domestic violence. See A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(1), (2). Because the court found that Husband committed two acts of domestic violence within the past year, it had to sustain the order. See id.

Section 13-3602(E) requires a protective order when the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year.

Alaniz v. Alaniz · filed 2022-03-03(E)(1), (2)

A court must grant a protective order if it determines that the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year.1 A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(1), (2).

Section 13-3602(E)(2) allows an order of protection when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed domestic violence within the past year; supported disorderly conduct can justify continuing the order.

Smith v. Burnett · filed 2023-01-12(E)(2)

On the filing of a verified petition under A.R.S. § 13-3602(B), the court may issue an ex parte order of protection by finding reasonable cause to believe that “[t]he defendant has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year.” ... To be clear, to continue the order, the court must find, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable cause to believe an act of domestic violence has been committed within the past year based on a petition alleging “specific act[s] of domestic violence” and the evidence presented at a contested hearing. ... The court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in finding a sufficient basis to continue the order of protection.

Section 13-3602(E) permits an order of protection on reasonable cause to believe the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed an act within the past year, or earlier if good cause supports considering it.

Hodges v. Hodges · filed 2023-02-02(E)(1)–(2)

The superior court may issue an order of protection if it finds “reasonable cause” to believe “[t]he defendant may commit an act of domestic violence,” or “[t]he defendant has committed an act of violence within the past year or within a longer period of time if the court finds that good cause exists to consider a longer period of time.” ... The record does not support either of the court’s conclusions regarding instances of domestic violence. There is, therefore, no basis to uphold the Order.

Section 13-3602(E) permits an order of protection to include a defendant’s child when the court has reasonable cause to believe domestic violence involves the child or the child has been, or may be, physically harmed.

Watson v. Ford · filed 2022-04-26(E)

To include a defendant’s child within the scope of an order of protection, the court must have reasonable cause to believe the alleged acts of domestic violence involve the child or the child has been, or may be, physically harmed.

Section 13-3602(E) permits a contested order of protection to remain in effect when the plaintiff proves the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the applicable period.

Principe v. Principe · filed 2022-06-07(E)(1), (2)

As applicable here, for a contested order of protection to remain in effect, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “[t]he defendant may commit an act of domestic violence” or “has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year or within a longer period of time if the court finds that good cause exists to consider a longer period.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(1), (2); Ariz. R. Protective Order P. 38(g)(3).

Section 13-3602 requires a petition for an order of protection to allege a specific act of domestic violence.

Miller v. Miller · filed 2022-07-21

When petitioning for an order of protection, the plaintiff must allege a specific act of domestic violence. Ariz. R. Protect. Ord. P. 23(b)(1); A.R.S. § 13-3602. ... Alexandra’s petition sufficiently alleged an act of domestic violence.

Section 13-3602(E)(2) requires an order of protection when there is reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed an act of domestic violence within the past year.

Castillo v. Cavanaugh · filed 2024-01-11(E)(2)

A court must issue an order of protection if the petitioner establishes “reasonable cause” to believe the defendant “committed an act of domestic violence within the past year.” A.R.S. §§ 13-3602(E)(2), -3601. ... We discern no error. The record has ample evidence to support the superior court’s decision.

Section 13-3602(E) allows a contested protective order to remain in effect when the plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year.

Overfield v. Sungulyan · filed 2024-07-18(E)

For a contested protective order to remain in effect, the plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “[t]he defendant may commit an act of domestic violence” or “has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year.” Ariz. R. Prot. Ord. P. 38(g)(3); A.R.S. § 13-3602(E). ... This evidence provided an adequate basis for the superior court’s finding “by a ... preponderance of the evidence that the allegations in [the] petition occurred and an act of domestic violence happened.”

Section 13-3602(H) prohibits mutual orders of protection, but permits successive orders requested by one party.

Ingram v. Hernandez · filed 2024-09-19(H)

The court here did not issue mutual orders of protection; only Mother requested an order of protection. The court issued initial orders and thereafter changed them at Mother’s request, taking into account Father’s subsequent interactions with Mother and the children. The court did not violate Section 13-3602(H).

Section 13-3602(E) allows an order of protection based on domestic violence, which includes harassment.

Robledo v. Robledo · filed 2025-04-29(E)

“Domestic violence” under Section 13-3602(E) includes the statutory offense of harassment. A.R.S. § 13-3601(A).

Section 13-3602(E) requires reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed or may commit domestic violence before a court issues an order of protection.

Hernandez v. Loarca · filed 2025-05-15(E)

A trial court “shall issue an order of protection” if it finds reasonable cause to believe that “[t]he defendant may commit an act of domestic violence” or “[t]he defendant has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year” or, where good cause exists, a longer period. § 13-3602(E). ... Thus, the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that Loarca engaged in harassment that satisfied the statutory definition of domestic violence. Nor does the record contain any indication that Loarca might commit harassment in the future. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion when it continued the order of protection.

Section 13-3602(E)(2) permits an order of protection based on a single past act of domestic violence.

Garcia v. Vallon · filed 2025-11-18(E)(2)

When a parent engages in any behavior resulting in an act of domestic violence under A.R.S. § 13-3601(A), the definition in A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D)(3) is satisfied because, under A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(2), the court may issue an order of protection based on a single past act of domestic violence.

Section 13-3602(E) requires reasonable cause to believe the respondent may commit domestic violence or committed it within the past year, or earlier if good cause supports considering a longer period.

Terrell v. Beck · filed 2025-12-10(E)(1)–(2)

To meet that burden, Terrell needed to establish reasonable cause to believe Beck either “may commit an act of domestic violence” or “has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year or within a longer period of time if the court finds that good cause exists to consider a longer period.” See A.R.S. § 13-3602.E.1 (“may commit”) –E.2 (“has committed”).

Section 13-3602(E)(2) permits an order of protection based on domestic violence more than a year old only if the court finds good cause to consider it.

Carlson v. Carlson · filed 2025-07-22(E)(2)

Accordingly, for the court to continue the second order of protection, it would have had to “find[] good cause . . . to consider” violations of the first order of protection that occurred more than a year before Devrie filed her second petition. A.R.S. § 13-3602(E)(2).

Section 13-3602 permits a court considering a new order of protection to consider prior orders and events alleged in earlier applications, even if those events were fully adjudicated.

Gilbert v. Sherman · filed 2026-02-12(C)(5)

To that end, the court may consider the issuance of prior orders of protection, even if inactive, when deciding the issuance of a subsequent order. See A.R.S. § 13-3602(C)(5). ... Thus, this statutory authority forms a special circumstance allowing courts to consider events alleged in prior applications in hearings for orders of protection, even if a full and fair adjudication of those prior incidents was reached.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a firearms restriction in an order of protection only if the defendant poses a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff or another specifically designated person.

Mahar v. Acuna, II · filed 2012-10-18(G)(4)

When a court issues an order of protection, it may prohibit the possession of firearms “[i]f the court finds that the defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff or other specifically designated persons.” § 13-3602(G)(4).

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a firearm restriction in an order of protection when the defendant poses a credible threat to the plaintiff’s physical safety; the petition need not allege an incident involving a firearm.

Lopez v. Lopez · filed 2018-09-13(G)(4)

In Wife’s petition, at item 7, she requested Husband not be permitted to possess firearms because of a risk of harm. This was sufficient to put the matter at issue and Husband on notice. In addition, she testified she felt fearful when she learned the gun kept in the home had been moved from its usual storage place. This testimony, along with the superior court’s findings that Husband had been physically violent with Wife, supported the court’s decision to order the continued application of the Brady Act restriction on Husband’s right to possess a firearm for the term of the order of protection.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a Brady notice restricting firearm access only after the court inquires about the defendant’s firearm access and whether the defendant poses a credible threat to protected persons.

Cusick v. Gerth · filed 2020-03-31(G)(4)

Only then may the court include a Brady notice restricting a defendant’s access to firearms. A.R.S. § 13-3602(G)(4). The court made no such inquiry here, so Brady cannot apply.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) requires a credible-threat finding before a court imposes a state-law firearms restriction in an order of protection.

Flynn v. Christopher Cody Allen Flynn · filed 2024-01-22(G)(4)

And while a credible-threat finding is always required for a state-law firearms restriction, see § 13-3602(G)(4), the same is not true of a federal restriction.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a court to prohibit a defendant from possessing or purchasing firearms for the duration of an order of protection if it finds the defendant a credible threat to the plaintiff’s physical safety.

Michaelson v. Garr · filed 2014-05-06(G)(4)

A court issuing an order of protection can “prohibit the defendant from possessing or purchasing a firearm for the duration of the order” after determining that “the defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(G)(4). Here, the superior court reviewed the text messages on Michaelson’s cell phone, along with the testimony, and determined that Garr was a credible threat to Michaelson’s physical safety.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a firearm restriction in an order of protection when the defendant poses a credible threat to the physical safety of a protected person.

Savord v. Morton · filed 2014-07-24(G)(4)

Upon issuing an order of protection, a court may prohibit the possession of firearms if it finds the defendant poses a credible threat ... to the physical safety of the plaintiff or another specifically designated person. ... Considering the lack of evidence supporting the Notice of PBI and the absence of the appropriate inquiries in that regard, Father is entitled to have the PBI quashed.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) requires a finding that the defendant poses a credible threat to physical safety before an order of protection triggers a firearm restriction.

Nicaise v. Sundaram · filed 2018-09-27(G)(4)

As Sundaram notes, however, Arizona law still required the superior court to conduct a specific inquiry into whether she posed a credible threat to Nicaise’s physical safety. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3602(G)(4), “[a] firearm restriction under the federal [Brady] Act is triggered by an order of protection only if the order includes a finding that [the] person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of [the] intimate partner or child.” Savord, 235 Ariz. at 260, ¶ 20 (citations omitted). ... The superior court failed to conduct the required inquiry regarding Sundaram’s access to firearms, and the record lacks evidence concerning Sundaram threatening any physical violence toward Nicaise. Therefore, we vacate the Notice of Brady Indictor.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) requires an explicit finding that a person poses a credible threat to a protected person’s physical safety before a court may restrict firearm possession under an order of protection.

Graves v. Slawson · filed 2021-01-14(G)(4)

The court may prohibit a party from possessing or purchasing a firearm for the duration of the order of protection only if the order “includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety” of the protected person.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) requires evidence of a credible threat before a court may impose a firearm restriction through a Notice of PBI.

Fisher v. Fisher · filed 2017-06-15(G)(4)

For these same reasons, Father is correct in arguing the superior court erred in issuing the Notice of PBI because he did not pose a credible threat of harm to S.F.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) allows a firearm restriction during an order of protection when the defendant poses a credible threat to the petitioner’s physical safety.

Harter v. Molina · filed 2020-03-17(G)(4)

The superior court did not abuse its discretion when it issued a Brady Notice against father because this incident and father’s verbal abuse established father was a credible threat to mother’s safety.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) requires a finding that the defendant poses a credible threat to the plaintiff's physical safety before an order of protection may restrict firearms.

Majidi v. Milkwick · filed 2024-12-19(G)(4)

An Arizona Firearms Law restriction always requires a finding that the defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff. ... We therefore find that debatable issues exist as to whether Wife requested firearms restrictions and whether the court conducted a sufficient Rule 23(i) inquiry. ... We treat Wife's failure to address these issues as an implied confession of reversible error.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a firearm prohibition in an order of protection only when the defendant poses a credible threat to the physical safety of a protected person.

Raber v. Wagner · filed 2025-05-08(G)(4)

Upon entering an order of protection, a court may “prohibit the defendant from possessing or purchasing a firearm for the duration of the order.” § 13-3602(G)(4). However, such prohibition is contingent on ... the court finding “that the defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff” or other individuals designated by the protective order. Id. ... Therefore, the court abused its discretion in affirming the original July 9 protective order’s prohibition against Wagner’s possession of firearms.

Section 13-3602(G)(4) allows a court to restrict a defendant’s firearms during an order of protection when the defendant poses a credible threat to the plaintiff’s physical safety.

Pineda v. Campos · filed 2025-08-07(G)(4)

Wife’s allegation that Husband owns or carries firearms, and the evidence of Husband’s threatening behavior, support the court’s credible threat finding and the Arizona firearms restriction under Section 13-3602(G)(4).

Section 13-3602(G)(4) permits a court to prohibit firearm possession if it finds the defendant poses a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff or another specifically designated person.

Banks v. Bailey · filed 2026-01-27(G)(4)

Arizona law permits the court to prohibit the possession of firearms “[i]f the court finds that the defendant is a credible threat to the physical safety of the plaintiff or other specifically designated persons.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(G)(4). ... The superior court failed to ask Banks about Bailey’s “use of or access to firearms to determine whether [he] pose[d] a credible threat to [her] ... physical safety,” as required by Rule 23(i)(1), and there was no testimony on that point. ... We therefore vacate the Brady notice.

Section 13-3602(P) preserves an order of protection issued by a lower court while a related family law action is pending in a higher court.

In the Matter of Michael E. Isler · filed 2014-01-13(P)

Although the superior court had “exclusive jurisdiction” over M.B.’s petition in light of the pending family law matter, see A.R.S. § 13-3602(P); Ariz. R. Protect. Ord. P. 4(A)(1), the justice court order was valid. See A.R.S. § 13-3602(P) (“No order of protection shall be invalid or determined to be ineffective merely because it was issued by a lower court at a time when an action for maternity or paternity, annulment, legal separation or dissolution of marriage was pending in a higher court.”). Consequently, contrary to the superior court’s ruling, Isler’s advice to M.B. did not result in issuance of an invalid order.

Section 13-3602(P) preserves an order of protection issued by a lower court while a family law matter is pending in a higher court, even though the higher court has exclusive jurisdiction.

In the Matter of Michael E. Isler · filed 2014-03-04(P)

Although the superior court had “exclusive jurisdiction” over M.B.’s petition in light of the pending family law matter, see A.R.S. § 13-3602(P); Ariz. R. Protect. Ord. P. 4(A)(1), the justice court order was valid.

Section 13-3602(P) gives the superior court authority over a transferred order of protection as though it had issued the order.

Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney · filed 2014-09-18(P)

After reviewing the order from the municipal court, the superior court was statutorily authorized to handle the order “as though the petition for an order of protection had been originally brought in the superior court.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(P). The superior court, as a result, had authority over the protective order as if it had originally issued the order.

Section 13-3602 gives the superior court jurisdiction to issue an order of protection based on a violation of an earlier order, regardless of where the violation occurred.

Shah v. Vakharwala · filed 2018-01-11(A)

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-3602(A), ... the Superior Court of Arizona is granted jurisdiction to hear orders of protection upon the filing of a verified petition. An order entered pursuant to that section has the force of a court order. A.R.S. § 13-3602(J). To violate that order is to disobey a court order under A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2). There is no requirement that the acts that give rise to this violation occur within the state boundaries and, thus, a court has subject matter jurisdiction to enforce its own orders.

Section 13-3602(T) requires a transferred protective-order proceeding to be docketed in the pending superior court action; that docketing does not consolidate the proceedings.

Ross v. Pratte · filed 2022-09-21(T)

The protective-order proceeding must then “be docketed in the pending superior court action and shall proceed as though the petition . . . had been originally brought in the superior court.” A.R.S. § 13-3602(T). However, the dissolution action and protective-order proceedings are not thereby consolidated and, in fact, by court rule, cannot be consolidated.

Section 13-3602 authorizes courts to consider petitions for orders of protection, but a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant to grant one.

Martinez v. Zuniga · filed 2024-03-21

The superior court correctly noted that A.R.S. § 13-3602 grants the court “jurisdiction to consider a verified petition for an order of protection.” Nevertheless, a court must also have personal jurisdiction over a party to comport with due process. ... Thus, we conclude that a court may not grant an order of protection against a defendant over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction.

Section 13-3602(T) does not prevent a court from entering an order of protection merely because the protected child is involved in another family court matter when the respondent is not a party to that matter.

Stoddard v. Madril · filed 2024-11-05(T)

Madril first argues the superior court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order of protection here because Child was involved in another family court matter. He relies on A.R.S. § 13-3602(T). That reliance is misplaced because Madril is not a party to that family court matter.

Section 13-3602(P) allows attorneys’ fees for an order of protection only after a hearing.

Pachtman v. Pachtman · filed 2014-08-19(P)

Because Husband did not timely request a substantive hearing and none was conducted, the award of fees is inconsistent with the requirement under both Protective Rule 2(C) and A.R.S. § 13-3602(P), that attorneys’ fees may be awarded for an OOP after a hearing.

Section 13-3602(P) authorizes a court to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in an order of protection proceeding.

Hovannisian v. Hovannisian · filed 2019-10-24(P)

The court had authority to grant costs and reasonable attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 13-3602(P), after considering (1) the merits of the defense or claim of the unsuccessful party; (2) extreme hardships that might be suffered by the unsuccessful party in paying the award; and (3) the deterrent effect the award might have on valid claims.

Section 13-3602(T) leaves an award of attorney’s fees to the court’s discretion.

Castro v. Cartter · filed 2023-02-07(T)

On the record presented and in the court’s discretion, Father’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 13-3602(T) is denied.

Section 13-3602(T) permits an award of costs and reasonable attorney fees in an order of protection proceeding after a hearing with notice to the affected party.

Vanwormer v. Lopez · filed 2025-01-09(T)

Father did not request an award of fees under A.R.S. § 13- 3602(T) and did not discuss the applicable factors specified in Rule 39(b). Accordingly, he has not properly requested an award of attorneys’ fees. See ARCAP 21(a)(2). As a result, this court declines to award Father attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal.

Section 13-3602 does not make an order for exclusive possession change a home's property character or prevent reimbursement for excluding another party from the home.

In Re the Marriage of McCulloch · filed 2024-02-28

Further, nothing in § 13-3602 suggests that an order for exclusive possession alters the separate or community character of a residence or any contractual relationship between the parties. Nor does such an order imply a right to possess property in which the other party also has a right to possession without reimbursement. An order for exclusive use of a residence does not preclude a family court from ordering reimbursement for a party’s exclusion from a marital or separate home.

Section 13-3602(G)(2) does not require officers to provide a civil standby without a court order.

Gatlin v. Curtis · filed 2025-03-11(G)(2)

However, as the statute makes clear, law enforcement will only perform this function pursuant to a court order. In this case, Plaintiff makes no allegation that he has a court order that would permit him to take possession of the vehicle. Without a court order, Plaintiff fails to state a claim that the Officers or the City of Phoenix were required to assist him under A.R.S. § 13-3602.

Section 13-3602(G)(2) does not create liability for an officer who cites someone for violating a facially valid protective order.

Berry v. Berry · filed 2025-07-25(G)(2)

Nothing in that statute creates liability against a law enforcement officer who cites a person for violation of a facially valid protective order.