Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 12 Nov 2015 05:08 PM by  Ellen Crowley
R-15-0006 Rule 74, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure (Parenting Coordinators)
 41 Replies
Author Messages
spickard11
Posts:

--
08 Jan 2015 03:13 PM
    R-15-0006

    PETITION TO AMEND RULE 74, ARIZONA RULES OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE

    Would address issues relating to parenting coordinators

    Petitioner:
    The Honorable Janet Barton, Chair
    Ad Hoc Parenting Coordinator Workgroup
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3252
    SPickard@courts.az.gov

    ORIGINAL PETITION filed January 8, 2015 (see Attachments 3 and 4 below)

    Modified comment period granted:

    April 27, 2015 - First round of comments due
    May 20, 2015 - Amended Petition due
    JUNE 15, 2015 - SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS DUE
    July 13, 2015 - Petitioner's reply to comments due

    AMENDED PETITION filed May 20, 2015 (see Attachments 1 and 2 below)

    ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2016.


    MOTION TO REOPEN Matter to Revise Rule 97, Forms 9-11 to Conform with Amended Rule 74 and Request for Emergency Adoption

    Filed November 13, 2015

    ADOPTED on an emergency basis, effective January 1, 2016.



    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    12 Mar 2015 11:45 AM
    Annette T. Burns
    2600 N. Central Avenue, Suite 900
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 230-9118
    Annette@BTlawyers.com
    Attachments
    MLynch
    Posts:

    --
    13 Mar 2015 04:33 AM
    Martin Lynch
    1039 W 19th St, Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com

    Father and Victim of Parenting Coordinator Abuse, of up to and including Class 2 Felony Crimes. Also Systems and Processes Engineer, responsible for Implementation and Monitoring Compliance to AS9100 and ISO9001 Aerospace Quality Standards for Boeing, United Technologies and Honeywell

    Re: Ad Hoc Parenting Coordinator Workgroup Report Jan 8, 2015

    Amended Comment
    Attachments
    blbrody
    Posts:

    --
    23 Mar 2015 05:27 PM
    Barry L. Brody
    5050 East Thomas Road
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-381-0111
    602-952-7377 Fax
    grh@divorceaz.com
    AZ State Bar #005227
    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    15 Apr 2015 03:34 PM
    Martin Lynch
    Concerned Parents
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St
    Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com

    Comment: Request for collaboration of the Arizona State House, Senate and Governor Ducey
    Attachments
    apaus
    Posts:

    --
    17 Apr 2015 04:36 PM
    ARIZONA MEDIATION INSTITUTE
    Judith M. Wolf (010529)
    Andi J. Paus (018506)
    Aris J. Gallios (010619)
    3131 East Camelback Road, Suite 230
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    (602) 852-5565
    Attachments
    keithberkshire
    Posts:

    --
    22 Apr 2015 08:51 AM
    Keith Berkshire, 024107
    BERKSHIRE LAW OFFICE, PLLC
    5050 N. 40th Street, Suite 340
    Phoenix, AZ 85018
    Office: 602-396-7668
    Fax: 602-396-7697
    Keith@BerkshireLawOffice.com
    Attachments
    blbrody
    Posts:

    --
    22 Apr 2015 11:42 AM
    American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,
    Arizona Chapter
    by Barry L. Brody, President
    5050 East Thomas Road
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-381-0111
    602-952-7737
    grh@divorceaz.com
    Attachments
    Tango
    Posts:

    --
    22 Apr 2015 08:19 PM
    Wednesday, April 22, 2015

    Terry Decker
    5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
    Mesa, AZ 85206
    480 352-5294
    t.manndu@gmail.com

    Madam Chairperson and Members,

    I have had extensive service in the legislature for five years. That service has included being tasked by Senator Gray to represent Arizona citizens in stakeholders meetings for a bill among other things. Judge Cohen, then the chairman of the Supreme Court Child Support Committee, suggested that I serve on the Legislative Child Support Committee with his support. This I did.

    The issues encompass, but are not limited to, the following:

    1) Parent coordinator fees (range, cap, inquiry about parents’ finances, length of services, etc.).
    2) Lack of recourse/appeal process for litigants.
    3) Qualifications of parenting coordinators.
    4) Scope of authority of parenting coordinators

    Addressing Annette Burns’ comments, in part, in opposition to proposed changes please consider the following quote from page 3 paragraph 1.
    “ Judge Barton, chair of that Workgroup, reported that there were four to six complaints from litigants that led to the formation of the Workgroup. [Email from Judge Barton to Family Law Executive Council and American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Arizona Chapter, dated December 6, 2014] If 4-6 litigants had complaints, and assuming that the estimate that there were 250 PC reports filed in 2013 is correct, then the litigant complaints represent 1.6- 2.4% of PC reports filed in 2013. The proposed changes to the Rule seem somewhat overwhelming in light of that percentage of “problems” reported.” The big problem is apparent, nobody knows how many PC reports were filed nor do we know how many clients were dissatisfied or harmed by their PCs which makes managing this or any process without data, virtually impossible

    It would be appropriate for Ms. Burns to cite where her estimate of 250 PC reports filed in 2013 came from. It is of note that there is almost no actual data available. Therefore Ms. Burns is forced to resort to unsubstantiated estimates. It should be noted that choosing any single year to match with the alleged number of complainants is statistically incorrect and fallacious. There is no reason to believe and no information to support the statistical association of the litigants with year 2013.

    Further, the representation that “4-6 litigants” represent the total mistreated litigants is grossly misleading. A more correct definition of these litigants is that they comprise the percentage of mistreated litigants that:

    1) Had the financial, political awareness, political connections, energy left after being decimated psychologically, fiscally, and emotionally by one or more PCs to pursue a legislative connection.
    2) Was able to obtain a response from a legislator. The majority of attempts at communication with a legislator are without success or response. Believe me, I know as I have been down this road.
    3) Had the time to invest in learning the system. After being financially being decimated there is the very practical problem of feeding and clothing their children and providing housing in times of economic crisis.
    4) Had the time to invest in a time consuming process of gaining access to a legislator.
    5) It would rarely occur to the majority of victims that they might have any possibility of success in gaining the attention of a legislator. Almost nobody would even think such a thing.

    It seems certain that far less than 1% of victims of PC abuse would succeed in becoming one of the “4-6 litigants.”

    Given the above circumstances the number of actual mistreated “litigants” and their children that need protection from harm actually inflicted upon them would number in the hundreds or probably even thousands. It is an alarming number suggesting that the vast majority of PC interventions result in some form of abuse. The abuse is certainly not of the PCs.

    It is very important to note that most clients represented by an attorney have been advised by their attorney not to bother to complain, as the attorney will assure them that there is no recourse outside of the courtroom!

    Even PCs who do a decent job but charge 2 or 4 times as much for the level of service that could have been provided by a less expensive provider are abusing their clients. In this case we would call that financial abuse and this is the first of the four concerns listed by Judge Barton. Again, how can a needy family or client determine which low cost providers offer good service without any customer satisfaction survey data? A fact that we should all agree on is that charging $300 per hour does not guarantee 5 times the benefit of a PC charging $60 per hour. It is in fact possible that the $300 per hour PC might be doing a worse job than the $60, which I have personally experienced myself.

    The lack of metrics from which one can derive accurate data to base decisions on for both the court and the consumer is unacceptable and unnecessary. There is an industry wide tool available which is in commonplace use around the world by companies endeavoring to be successful by providing quality products and services to their customers. That tool is ISO 9001. ISO Certification represents a “badge” of quality and is often a mandatory business requirement. For the benefit of the customers this Court is tasked to serve, the obtaining of ISO 9001 certification for the PC process defined by Rule 74 would be an industry leading move. At least the court can begin the process by putting ISO 9001 standards into practice by automating and providing relevant data to itself and to the public. The data would benefit not just the “litigant”, but also the court. It will make the court environment a clearer, more effortless, more fullfilling place to work. The same could be said for the litigants. It would serve to lower the level of stress and contention in direct and indirect ways. Currently the court and all the rest of us are flying blind in this matter. Which PCs are doing a good job and which PCs are doing a poor job or abusing their clients? Who knows on a global scale? That is what metrics are about, knowing on a global scale.

    While some of the comments rendered by the PCs on this site have merit; in whole they are reminiscent of tactics used by attorneys in cases in which they have no case, so they obscure the truth. And these comments are by attorneys who have a great financial incentive to keep things as they are. That is a state that is unregulated, without oversight, and without any means by which anyone can define their actual behavior. The cloak of obscurity hanging over their activities and excessive fees is one that they will naturally fight to preserve.

    Some of the commentators on R-15-0006 have great experience in ISO 9001 and will avail the court of their services. The use of an industry wide tool called Survey Monkey can readily facilitate the gathering of information.

    It is unknown to this commentator if the court was successful at obtaining extra funds to continue providing some of their on line services. There are members of the community who are skilled at providing the modifications of the court website and system necessary to, for instance, provide needed user information and input on the court provider site. They have offered to provide these services free of charge to the court.
    The data which seems necessary to manage the PC process would be:

    1) Value provided to the customer (litigants) in the form of customer satisfaction, scale 1 to 10.
    2) How much the client paid to get the results they got?
    3) How many recommendations were made by PCs to the Family Court?
    4) How many objections to PC recommendations were registered with the Court?
    5) How many of these objections were sustained by Judges of the Family Court?

    Please feel free to contact me at any time.

    With Kind Regards,
    Terry Decker

    5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
    Mesa, AZ 85206
    480 352-5294
    t.manndu@gmail.com
    sciallij
    Posts:

    --
    24 Apr 2015 11:41 AM
    John V. Scialli, M.D., D.F.A.A.C.A.P., D.L.F.A.P.A.
    4647 N. 32nd St. Ste. 260
    Phoenix AZ 85018-3344
    Phone: 602-224-9888
    Fax: 602-224-5304
    scialli@mindspring.com
    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    24 Apr 2015 02:37 PM
    Martin D Lynch
    “Concerned Parents”
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St, Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com

    REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING PER RULE 28(E) AND REQUEST TO COVER A PROCEEDING PER RULE 122(C)

    Per Arizona Supreme Court Order dated 04/29/2015, the Court DENIED the Request for Public Hearing and the Request to Cover a Proceeding per Rule 122(c). See full Order in Attachment 3 below.

    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 12:07 PM
    Martin D Lynch
    “Concerned Parents”
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St, Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com


    Comment: Simple Solution, Data and Report in 45 Days
    Attachments
    HRDavis
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 03:07 PM
    Helen R. Davis
    The Cavanagh Law Firm
    1850 N. Central, Suite 2400
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    (602) 322-4008
    hdavis@cavanaghlaw.com
    Attachments
    apennington
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 03:41 PM
    Alyce Pennington, Commissioner of Pima County Superior Court, as an individual and not for the Bench of Pima County
    110 W. Congress
    Tucson, Az 85701
    Telephone: 520-724-4210
    Email: apennington@sc.pima.gov
    Attachments
    pswann
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 04:07 PM
    Hon. Peter B. Swann
    Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. 1
    1501 W. Washington
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 542-5305
    pswann@appeals.az.gov

    Hon. Sally S. Duncan
    Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County
    201 W. Jefferson
    Phoenix, AZ 85003
    (602) 506-9042
    duncans@superiorcourt.maricopa.gov

    William G. Klain (015851)
    Lang & Klain, P.C.
    8767 E. Via de Commercio, Suite 102
    Scottsdale, AZ 85258
    (480) 947-1911
    WKlain@LangBaker.com
    Attachments
    dv
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 05:56 PM
    Diana Vigil, L.P.C., R.P.T.
    Julie A. Skakoon, M.C., L.P.C.
    7500 E. McDonald Drive, Suite 400A
    Scottsdale, Arizona 85250
    admin@childtherapyaz.com
    Attachments
    davidalger
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 06:01 PM
    David M. Alger
    3131 N 70th St #20202
    Scottsdale, AZ 85251
    602-697-0878
    rule74change@algerfamily.us
    Attachments
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 06:54 PM
    Martin D Lynch
    “Concerned Parents”
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St, Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com


    Comment: Examples of PC Misconduct - Why a Customer Survey is Necessary
    Attachments
    vickialger
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 07:50 PM
    Vicki Alger
    3131 N 70TH ST #2020
    SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251
    rule74change@algerfamily.us
    Attachments
    kduckworth
    Posts:

    --
    27 Apr 2015 09:43 PM
    Karen Duckworth
    (480)415-2824
    kduckworth2.0@hotmail.com


    I would like to thank the Committee and Judge Barton for the opportunity to provide public feedback at this stage of the Rule change, and I hope my response is not deemed untimely. Please consider my somewhat philosophical thoughts and ponderings on the matter in my attached letter. I may have posed more questions than I proposed solutions, but I hope it helps the Committee understand a little bit more about some public perception of the negative impact many PC appointments have on families.
    Attachments
    Tango
    Posts:

    --
    28 Apr 2015 12:43 AM
    Terry Decker
    5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
    Mesa, AZ 85251
    480 352-5294
    t.manndu@gmail.com


    Madam Chairperson and Members,

    I respectfully have the following observations to share.

    In thirteen years of supporting members of Arizona Father's Rights I have seen numerous documents proving beyond doubt that severe abuses quite outside the bounds of belief are being committed on behalf of the judiciary. You will find in the following commentary that it is not unusual for a parenting coordinator to be promoting family dissension and interfering or blocking parental communication much to the measured detriment of the children.

    This is not so much about separating the good providers from the bad providers as it is about weeding out the deliberately harmful and abusive “professionals” from the rest. It is also about the common abuse of rule and statute that exists among family court judges. The statute needs to be worded in forceful terms that might catch a judge's eye. To that end dissemination of family law material and periodic testing of judges is necessary. While the last is not in the main stream of this committee's subject matter, it is germaine to consider given that these rules serve as direction to judges.

    I bring your attention to the Rule 74 Proposed Changes: Page 25 of Judge Barton's post, last paragraph:

    “In a case where the parenting coordinator is licensed by the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners and a parent has filed a complaint with the court regarding unprofessional conduct, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2081(b), prior to referring a complaint arising out of a court ordered evaluation, treatment or psychoeducation to the board, the court must find that there is a substantial basis to refer the complaint for consideration by the board. “

    There is a statute passed by the legislature, and signed by Governor Ducey, to come into effect July 6, 2015 which rescinds the right of the court to pre-qualify any complaint a person might have to file that complaint with the AZ Board of Psychological Examiners.
    SB1439 can be found here:
    http://azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.a...ion_Id=114
    This was signed by Gov Ducey April 1 and becomes law July 6.

    Rule 74 should require any complaint made to the court involving professional misconduct to be, at a minimum, referred to the licensing body no matter which discipline. This does not preclude the court from taking further action on its own to address the matter. Regardless of whether the court takes further action, the matter should be referred to the licensing body without further ado.
    PCs have tremendous political influence conferred by their association with the court that prevents the system from working to defend the public from court appointed wrong doers. Examples will follow later in this document. Even with no direct action by the court, the institutions and portions of government charged with oversight of PC's are prevented from discharging their duties.

    I pray the court take action to communicate to those charged with oversight of PCs that it has no intent or desire to interfere with their duties as they apply to anyone in their employ or appointment. And that, given the fact that said persons wield tremendous power over the populace, they should be held to the strictest standards of conduct. It should be said that there is no immunity from committing a crime intended in any respect to those appointed by the court and, regardless of how an immunity is crafted, there is no intent ever that the court shield said person from criminal prosecution. Further it needs to be communicated that the court expects that prosecutorial discression not be used as a vehicle to avoid prosecuting any court appointed person.

    That would include communication, at a minimum, with the Attorney General, various levels of prosecutors including the county prosecutors, the State Bar Association, the AZ Board of Psychological Examiners, AZ Medical Board (AZ Board of Psychiatric Examiners), and the AZ Board of Behavioral Health.

    Regarding qualified parenting coordinators:
    It is contrary to statute for anyone to practice any form of behavioral health without being licensed by either the Az Board of Psychological Examiners, AZ Medical Board (the medical board governing psychiatrists), or the Az Board of Behavioral Health Examiners. There is a purpose and rationale for those statutes. In the provider list parenting coordinators are defined as behavioral health professionals. Attorneys are not trained in any meaningful way to handle or recognize the fine or even mainstream psychological characteristics and family dynamics in an educated or trained way. They cannot be expected to provide the level of care that the medical community provides; they have an entirely different skillset and training, some of it inimical to the best outcome for a PC in the midst of a family crisis.

    For example there might be to the outside world great contentiousness in a family that at first glance is exhibited by both parents at odds with one another. That does not mean that both parents are contributing to that contentiousness. One may be an example of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). They are known for their incredible skills of manipulation to such a degree that the DSM-5 warns the practitioner to not pay attention to the words of that person, only to the facts. Four percent of the population is ASPD. The other parent is forced to fight, if they indeed recognize what they are dealing with, for their children's well being. It is their duty as a parent. They have the duty to protect. An attorney is not qualified or trained to address these kinds of issues. Alcoholism
    I pray that attorneys be stricken from the list as eligible to function as Parenting Coordinators. The citizens of this state deserve more expertise than attorney training can provide and it is readily available.

    Judges are routinely using PC assignments as a means to deny parties access to due process. Judge Warner has done so numerous times with a refusal to give access to the legal system; that is what the PC is assigned for. As well he and other judges have denied access to records of children for “no cause shown.” There are numerous statutes including the parent's bill of rights which deny a judge the right to block access to child's records unless the court has found “a serious danger to the child” exists.
    The point of examining these issues is to encourage the court to make changes to Rule 74 which will reinforce a judge's duty to enforce the law. This is no panacea given the fact that laws and rules are being disregarded in a wholesale fashion. However, it will serve to strengthen and clarify the use of laws and rules in the case of PCs with the hope that it will dampen the tendency to abuse the system.


    Regarding Rule 74(K) immunity:

    I pray the following be included, “Immunity shall not be conferred if the PC makes a willful misrepresentation to the court. Further it shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including perjury.” It is not unusual for the core of the court appointed professionals to lie to the court. Nor should immunity be conferred for willfully causing harm to the client and gross negligence.

    The law enforcement and prosecutor community is interpreting the immunity conferred by this paragraph as absolute. It is unlikely that the court has that intent. I have seen documents which prove that this is so in numerous cases. The immunity conferred needs to be explicitly limited to civil immunity resulting in competently administering their duties in the case. It should be explicitly stated that any violation of criminal statute or rules of professional conduct is not condoned by the court nor immunity conferred for such conduct. It is unlikely that the court has the authority to issue blanket immunity for criminal conduct. The enforcement in such a fashion is corrosive to our community and a clear violation of our Constitutions and the values held by our society. I pray the committee to remedy this.

    Specific examples of abuse follow:
    Dr. Allen is a short, portly man. He started out his parenting coordination by taking a heated stance over the man, screaming at him, and denunciating him in the most defamatory way imaginable. Not a thing he said had foundation and even if it did the behavior is inappropriate.

    Dr. Allen shortly later lied to the court in an attempt to inflame the judge. A complaint was filed before the Board of Psychological Examiners. At the hearing Dr. Allen brought a one foot stack of folders, probably all blank. A PC does not need or make copies of the entire court file. His entire and only defense was that this was a contentious case. There was one outspoken member of the board but the man influencing the board had a matching stack of folders before him and stentoriously announced, “I have reviewed this case. It is a contentious case. There has been no violation of statute.”

    Dr. Yee in open court when asked if he was factually determining who was telling the truth, Mr. xxx or Ms. Xxx, replied, NO. In spite of claiming in his report that “the truth was challenging to determine but over time a pattern has emerged.” The ex in that case gleefully asserted that she had sex with Dr. Yee. Subsequent gross misrepresentations of the truth by Dr. Yee were without consequence when brought to the court's attention. Dr. Yee among other things claimed that a pediatrician who sent a letter of concern and advisement to the mother did not mean what the he said. His words were “that it can only be concluded that the doctor was manipulated....” This was a statement without foundation or truth and was only one of many falsehoods given to the court.

    In the mental health industry this is called risk taking. Dr. Yee and the other four percent that are ASPD revel in their ability to manipulate the court and all others that happen to pass through their environment. They take risk often for no other purpose than to revel in their influence, control and invincibility. They believe they can talk their way out of anything. And generally they are correct, they can. Therefore, they have no boundaries.

    It is noteworthy to note that they have no physical ability to feel empathy. This means that they no conscience. This can be seen in brainscans, for instance fMRI. The National Institute of Mental Health last summer announced that it was going to brainscans as the primary diagnostic tool. This is what is called widespread acceptance of this diagnostic tool. I personally spent an hour with the one doctor who does all of the fMRI's at Barrows Neurological Institute. She validated this use and referred me to a professor at the University of New Mexico as a world leader in this forensic use of these tests.

    In another instance Dr. Wienstock, as parenting coordinator, wrote a parting letter to Judge Adelman recommending that the parties be ordered to propercom.com and it be paid for by the father as a sanction for alleged email rule violations. The email violation was that the father deigned to be critical in passing of Weinstock in emails to the mother. The father was actually doing everything in his power to protect his family, including the ex, from the ravages of severe drug addiction that she was afflicted with. This last was uncontested and thoroughly acknowledged fact.

    The situation was this:

    1. There was no dispute that the mother has an extreme alcohol addiction. The son speaks of it.

    2. Mother has accused the father of being a child predator, a rapist, a homosexual among other things. These go by the wayside.

    3. The father convinces the mother to get into AA with help.

    4. The father joins AL-ANON and supports her armed with information gleaned from the AL-ANON education. The mother just entered into the program but of course is still unable to care for her son. Someone incapacitated by addiction cannot overcome it overnight.

    5. Weinstock is not involved in, does not support, nor does he comment on any of the above.

    6. Weinstock actively works against the mother in her fight against this horrendous disease by supporting her addiction. See the emails attached to Weinstock's report. Note that Weinstock did not include both sides of the conversation for the majority of the time.

    7. Father works harder and more effectively to support the mother in her struggle. Consider an exerpt from the father's email dated 12/3/2013. “ The important thing to focus on, is this is a disease that will only provide you a miserable existence until it eventually kills you. Did they tell you that part yet? Most people die of it, directly or indirectly, sooner or later and everyone gets to suffer along with you until death finally comes. You are right, The reality is not very nice. The good news is that AA is your chance to cheat death. Those people you met are just as nice as the people I have met. None of them are in it for the money. They all genuinely want to help you live. That is love Shirley. You have discovered it. Whether you realize it or not, you are in a fight for your life that you must win. It's going to be a tough fight but everything you need to win is available to you. ….. “ and more of the same.

    8. The above is deemed “Father's inappropriate behavior.” line 7 page 2 of the attached report.

    9. January 2, 2014 Weinstock files a report that is attached to this comment. He recommends interventions with regards to Father's communications with mother.
    1. He recommends a therapist be ordered by the court for father to address communication skills. Does the reading above imply substandard communication skills?
    2. He recommends the court order Father to sign-up for www.propercom.com to block his email at a cost of $30 per email. This is tantamount to and intended for blocking all joint parenting efforts in a situation where the favored parent is an extreme drug addict and is endangering the child and others on the streets of this city.

    10. 1/9/2014 Judge Adelman relieved Weinstock at his request and appointed Dr. Yee without any consultation with the family.

    11. 1/20/2014 Judge Adelman ordered all the sanctions recommended against the father. Weinstock appeared without notice to either party at the hearing to testify. This is a violation of the rules of court procedure and a denial of due process. Weinstock had exparte communication with the judge after he had been relieved. The judge stated on the record, “that he (Weinstock) must have had a good reason.” This connotes two things. 1. The judge saw nothing to support his ruling or Weinstock's recommendations in what was presented him. 2. The judge made a ruling of great consequences to the family without foundation, based solely on hearsay and with the assumption that he was dealing with a professional whom he could trust absolutely.

    12. Consequences? The child who is now 18 went abruptly from an honor student to failing and is in danger of not graduating high school. The mother is having a more difficult time with her addiction due to support that is an integral part of AA treatment being blocked by the court and the dark side of her addiction being catered to by Weinstock. Another apropos way of stating this is that Weinstock actively promoted conflict in the family and hindered and blocked to the limit of his ability their honest efforts to deal with the mother's drug addiction.

    13. Weinstock did not support or endeavor to help the family. It is of note that his sole concern was that the parties dared criticise his lack of action.

    14. That lack of action continued to be evinced by Dr. Yee.

    15. Shortly after Yee's succession to Weinstock he was called by father to help get a court order enforced. Yee informed him that he did not do court enforcement. Yet Yee knew that father was under court order to first go to the PC for aid in particular for enforcement. Further, the court PC assignment required Yee to assist in enforcement of court orders as provided for in Rule 74(E).

    16. Yee refused to do the job assigned him. Judge Adelman refused to give father access to the legal system until Yee did his job. Yee held the post for about six months but provided no services and billed no fees.

    17. It seems certain that Yee colluded with Weinstock to string out the lack of court action and thereby engender and continue to cause psychological and physical harm to the parties.

    Father struggled to get his child cared for while his child is under the care, and he is under the handicap, of an addled and severely addicted mother; struggling to help his son who is struggling through the nightmare of a daily struggle to survive the assaults of the incapacitated mother upon his senses and who controls his every access to the necessities of life and society.

    Now, in addition, he is under attack by a sociopath, mentally, socially, legally, and emotionally. The professional who was hired to help both the mother and father is only concerned about blocking all his efforts to help his child. It is the father's observation of the previous that Weinstock objects to. Weinstock DID NOT ONCE SEEK TO SUPPORT THE MOTHER IN HER STRUGGLES WITH ADDICTION WHICH WAS IN ITS MOST PERILOUS STAGE, SUPPORT THE CHILD IN ANY WAY IN HIS DAILY STRUGGLE TO LIVE IN THE MOST HORRENDOUS CONDITIONS, OR SUPPORT OR GUIDE THE FATHER IN HIS VAIN STRUGGLE TO AID HIS CHILD. INSTEAD WITH HIS LAST ACT HE CUT OFF ALL FAMILIAL COMMUNICATION, AND WITH IT, SUPPORT FOR MOTHER AND CHILD IN THAT VENUE.

    WEINSTOCK HAD NO PART IN GETTING THE MOTHER IN AA, THE FATHER IN AL-ANON, AND DID NOT COUNSEL OR ATTEMPT TO AID THE CHILD OR EITHER PARTY IN ANY MANNER.

    INSTEAD HE USED HIS INFLUENCE WITH THE JUDGE TO BLOCK JOINT PARENTING. The parents were confined to email and email was blocked at Weinstock's request to the judge by a $30 per email and $10 per text bounty charged for every attempt to coparent. For the most fundamental requirement of successful coparenting is free communication between the coparents. Weinstock Ph.D. intentionally used his influence with the judge to block coparenting, block the support being given to the addicted mother as an integral part of AL-ANON and AA, and in so doing block the parental support to the child that both parents in their own way were attempting to provide. The first stage of dealing with any addiction, especially a severe one, is getting into a crafted program. Weinstock actively worked to prevent the AA program from working. AA and AL-ANON are two essential parts of the most successful treatment of alcohol addiction available.

    Weinstock was replaced with Mr. Yee. Yee left all of Weinstock's work in place and endorsed it. It IS certain that both Yee and Weinstock in exparte communications with Judge Adleman were the instruments in convincing the Judge to order almost a month after Yee's assignment on January 20, 2014 the blocking of communication between the parents.

    The fact that the mother is an extreme alcohol addict is not mentioned by Weinstock, in his report. Weinstock endorses the mother's addiction. Weinstock endorses the mother driving a child while “blithering” drunk. Weinstock endorses the mother putting everyone else on the road, including children's, life at risk. In short Weinstock endorses the addiction of the mother.

    This is a pattern that has crossed my desk over and over and over again in the fourteen years I have been supporting fathers, significant others, and grandmothers. Gossip is never given credibility unless it's supported by court documents and documented communications. In particular it has happened with Yee, Weinstock, and Selmi. There has not once been an instance cross my desk of any of these three doing anything but injuring the family, gross fabrications to the court, grossly excessive fees, and humiliation of the vilest kinds. It is by no means limited to these three but they give new meaning to the word corruption.

    It is not unusual for Dr. Selmi to wait four to seven months before a first visit with the parties, especially in reunifications. This is because she is too busy traveling the world at the expense of children's education, clothing, nutrition, standard of living, and their physical and emotional well being.

    In parting it seems wise to consider what Dr. Martha Stout advises when asked how to identify ASPD. She says they always make use of the”pity party.” One sees this in the Yee and Wienstock exerpts above. It is also seen quite often in different kinds of reports. Changes implemented in Rule 74 should be mirrored in all other categories of court appointed persons.

    The list of litigants that caused this committee's formation is requested. The information has passed through so many hands to get to this stage that the points represented may very well be partial. Again, the committee needs data to make judicious changes to Rule 74. Also the 4-7 litigants should be able to participate in this committee. They are where the facts reside, at least some of them.

    Thank you for your consideration,
    Terry Decker






    Tango
    Posts:

    --
    28 Apr 2015 12:46 AM
    Terry Decker
    5120 E Hampton Ave, 1023
    Mesa, AZ 85206
    480 352-5294
    t.manndu@gmail.com

    Madam Chairperson and committee members,

    I formally request that the “4-6 litigants” be made a party to this committee's procedure. And access to their particular experiences be shared to all so that the “points” are assured to be accurate. At this time we are somewhat flying blind.

    The assertion that parenting coordinator misconduct is not appropriate for this forum is disputed. It seems likely that if the above data is examined one will find that it is the source of all rational points deriving from these people and their legislators.

    The points that have filtered through many parties to this committee cannot be ascertained without the source data.

    Terry Decker
    Tango
    Posts:

    --
    28 Apr 2015 02:43 AM
    Terry Decker
    5120 E Hampton Ave, 1023
    Mesa, AZ 85206
    480 352-5294
    t.manndu@gmail.com

    Madam Chairperson and committee members,

    The mandatory video taping of all interactions is necessary for memorializing the behavior of Parenting Coordinators and all court appointed professionals. Then the court will be dealing with indisputable facts if it decides to find out what is happening under its auspices.

    Penalties are in order for the failure to do so. There needs to be notification requirements for all parties.

    A tool for organizing such documents could be provided in a mandatory pre-filing or petition class the court could require. My nonprofit LLC dedicated to k-12 child education on what drugs do to one would be happy to provide this service.

    Terry Decker
    Aristocles
    Posts:

    --
    19 May 2015 04:40 AM
    Kevin Pickering
    29620 N 120th lane
    Peoria, AZ 85383
    602-896-0529
    kevinray1975@gmail.com


    Honorable Members of the Ad Hoc Parenting Coordinator Workgroup:

    I am a father of 4 minor children currently using a 3rd special master of the court to help facilitate family court orders.

    I would like my reflections to be taken into account when deciding future rules of Superior Family Court parenting special masters.

    I have had multiple family court judges attempt to help meet the legal needs of our children.

    Our first judge had accepted 2 of my 3 requests for a parent coordinator to help with differences, seeing as the current private therapist could only help the children to process concerns, not to obligate mother to cooperate with sessions, much less follow court orders. The final request resulted in an order for not only the appointment of a parent coordinator for one year but for the "parent coordinator to have final decision making authority regarding disagreements." The psychological aspect of the case was not one for which the judge appeared skilled, so the responsibility of the parent coordinator appeared understandable.

    After nearly 1 year of the appointment, a new judge did not take any recommendations of the parent coordinator, but did change the orders to have the children stay with me the majority of the time. The new judge had some indirect psychological-type of training and was more comfortable making related decisions of the law, even went so far as to decided where the children would attend school. The new judge openly claimed the previous judge "acted illegally" and even went so far as to order the opposite of that which the parent coordinator recommended regarding further use of court psychologists.

    The judicial discrepancy is evidence to the broken system mentioned repeatedly by those with more direct experience than my own. I learned a great deal in the high conflict class, but so much of my learning was regarding the 30 year custody evaluator's poor impression of family psychological improvements via the courtroom. It is clear Superior Family Court is in need of assistance, especially for high conflict involving certain personalities that are hard to read in a 15 minute or even 1 hour trial. Special Masters can help in that role.


    However, special masters of the court have interests that do not have to align with the best interest of children. In fact, special masters have too frequently participated in or have otherwise been deceived by difficult personalities. The current special master in my case has provided over 30 pages of emailed personal covert aggression. This aggression is mostly via counter-transference that any psychological analyst could readily recognize upon reading and see it is not related to fostering the common good of children much less court orders. As the special master notes over and over, there is nothing I can do, and the law allows for me to do very little to directly address the psychological bullying from the psychological professional. The process of performing experimental approaches to therapy, involving numerous students with little experience in high conflict, illegal medical recommendations, chasing children into the parking lot, etc. are just samples of the more obvious problems. When a broken system is expected to fix the very problems it is not trained to recognize, then the underlying problem only multiplies. In other words, if the boards of psychological behavioral health examiners cannot see complaints as a priority, then expedited protection of public health is not a priority.

    The monetary interests of special masters are of significant concern, especially when the court oversees their very behavior. The special master has a business interest in providing that which will generate business instead of that which is in the best interest of children. Had the first parent coordinator in my case been trained to understand the modern nuances of severe personality problems, and findings were not hidden from the final report, then the children could have been saved much needless hardship. I provided a letter to the first parent coordinator after his conference recommendation prevented the judge from initially allowing for another needed parent coordinator. The letter included the parent coordinator leaving out mother emotionally claiming for me to just take the children as she did not want the trouble. Since it was the coordinator that was manipulated to not see this intricate recruiting technique, it was never mentioned in the report. My quality assurance letter to him in 2013 did not appear to change his behavior, as many complaints still mount regarding his behavior on the Arizona Father's Rights Forum. Nevertheless, the parent coordinator did finally address some concerns on the forum, seemingly because of this very rule change being placed before the court. Changes in accountability measures can be effective.

    Special masters of the court can be inclined to lack care and integrity when immune to feasible peer accountability. When an overworked and broken Superior Family Court is left to fix problems with special masters, the remedy is needlessly over complicated. Direct complaints to the appropriate board can alleviate the workload of Family Court and allow those specialized in the craft to assess the behavior of the special masters. The resource reallocation appears to make the most sense from any number of angles. Please ask for any/all related documentation mentioned or otherwise potentially helpful in mitigating this public health concern.

    Sincerely,

    Kevin Pickering, BS, BA, R.Pharm.D.,BCPS

    Registered Doctor of Pharmacy
    Board Certified Pharmacotherapy Specialist
    ​​
    ecrowley
    Posts:

    --
    20 May 2015 01:50 PM
    AMENDED PETITION

    The Honorable Janet Barton, Chair
    Ad Hoc Parenting Coordinator Workgroup
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3252
    SPickard@courts.az.gov


    COMMENTS ON AMENDED PETITION DUE JUNE 15, 2015.
    Attachments
    MLynch
    Posts:

    --
    20 May 2015 06:33 PM
    PC Complaints


    Respondent:
    Martin D Lynch
    Concerned Parents
    National Parents Organization
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St, Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com

    Attachments
    Aristocles
    Posts:

    --
    04 Jun 2015 05:31 PM
    Kevin Pickering
    29620 N 120th lane
    Peoria, AZ 85383
    602-896-0529
    kevinray1975@gmail.com

    Honorable Chief Justice Bales:

    I personally presented the ​second​ 3 minute public speech to the ​a​d ​h​oc committee detailing my concerns related to my posted comment 5/19/15. As the ​a​d ​h​oc ​c​om​mittee unfolded 5/11/15​,​ my spoken concerns regarding the immunity of any special master ​appear​ more than ignored​.​ My spoken concerns w​ere​ followed by further amending the inappropriate immunity of parenting coordinators to reinstate the contested immunity, preventing the board of psychological behavioral health therapists from being addressed most expediently.

    I have found there are civil rights issues at stake with the ambiguity of both the confidentiality and immunity aspects of this ​newly amended ​rule. In fact, the rule now begets cruel and unusual punishment for lack of cohesive family dynamics. I will reference my comments and speech in my pursuit of maintaining such civil rights and freedom from unusual cruelty.

    Of a related note, special masters, ordered under stipulation, reduces to a two part effort from a parent. Such a stipulation ​would ​seem to be done for a political and a genuine purpose. The political purpose is to attempt to satisfy the limited assessment of the presiding judge and the parenting industrial complex. The genuine aspect of agreeing to any special master is to actually facilitate ​the ​rearing​ of​ thriving children in society.

    Unconventionally, I ​will​ address​ ​the genuine aspect of such a stipulation​ through this political venue.​

    I understand honorable ad hoc committee members are colleagues of yours, and you have an interest in supporting their view​​s​ for the conforming reason of the members simply being your entrusted peers​. I am formally asking you to table those conforming interests and maintain the original content clarity for which this rule ​initially ​require​d​ amendment. In other words, I am asking you to do what is in the best interest of the public as a priority​ and uncloak the parent coordinator immunity as the rule update originally intended​. I am asking you to think of the common good and not allow for a further accountability shuffle when rearing children​.​

    I have a more recent example to consider.​

    On June 3rd of 2015, I met with a Mesa ​f​orensic ​psychology ​practice for which only one member was ​court ​appointed​,​ via​​ the stipulation​,​ to help reunify ​my​ 4 children with their mother. ​When ex-parte communication with mother and secret meetings with one child were exposed, the special master responded to my power abuse concern with a copy of orders I provided the master 7 months prior. The master stated she coordinated a series of parenting decisions during the covert meeting and her orders allow her such authority. A series of disagreements ensued that resulted in several acts that cannot be reported on this forum. The legal expertise and skilled inertia in court order application was found desperately wanting. When the master would not stop yelling, continuing the belligerence into the hallway, several of her colleagues intervened.

    ​I told th​em all​, "​secretly ​making parenting decisions by proxy was not appropriate​." I told both ​of the recruited calming ​interventionists I was in attendance ​5/11/15 ​for Judge Janet Barton stating "she knows no law giving a judge the authority to make actual parenting decisions, but she encourages the judges to decide which ​parent​ decides​ during a given disagreement.​"​ (All members of the ad hoc committee appeared in agreement when consensus was sought).​ Both Mesa ​intervention ​therapists state they have done hundreds of such interventions for the court. In so doing​,​ they both state Judge Barton has told them the opposite at annual meetings. The special master​ therapists​ are saying that indeed they are to order parenting decisions as are the judges​,​ per ​their understanding of ​Judge Barton​'s guidance​.

    I present this discrepancy to only show you the relationship of special masters and family court judges ​can be ​destructive to families​, regardless of appointment by stipulation​.​ There is a clear need for immunity to be eliminated, especially where children's needs and personal medical information are left to the devices of those that have an interest subservient to promoting healthy families.


    I appreciate your efforts to keep the law consistent with the common good.

    Kevin Pickering, BS, BA, R.Pharm.D.,BCPS

    Registered Doctor of Pharmacy
    Board Certified Pharmacotherapy Specialist
    BurnsAnnette
    Posts:

    --
    08 Jun 2015 06:29 PM
    Annette T. Burns
    Attorney at Law
    2600 N. Central Avenue
    Suite 900
    Phoenix, AZ 85004
    602-230-9118
    Annette@BTlawyers.com
    State Bar No. 009871


    Comment to Amended Petition
    Attachments
    pazzino
    Posts:

    --
    11 Jun 2015 01:39 PM
    Michael Manola
    1901 W. Madison #224
    Phoenix, AZ 85009
    623-299-6637
    Michael@tonopahaz.net

    Committee Members and participants,

    After attending the committee meetings and reading all the comments, I hereby respectfully submit my comments for consideration. Understanding the Rule 74 committee and the changes upon the rule will eliminate court ordered parenting coordinators but yet keep parenting coordinators only by stipulation of the parties is a positive for parents and children. I would like to thank the committee members for their time and participation to change Rule 74.

    During my attendance at the meetings, a subject about the selection of Parenting Coordinators caught my attention. The Committee discussed blind lists when the parents could not agree on the PC selection. Knowing that the future rule 74 is by stipulation only, and if the court were asked to select a PC for the parties, I believe one significant matter has been grossly overlooked.

    It should be included in Rule 74 that no retired judicial officer (Judge, Commissioner) shall be allowed to be a family court special master, or more specifically a parenting coordinator. What has transpired in recent cases is a Judge picks a former colleague who is now a retired judge or commissioner for a parenting coordinator, or a law firm/business that employs the former bench colleague. This is definitely a conflict, bias, and impropriety. Furthermore, and in continuance of a severe conflict, the appointed PC and retired judge can return to the bench as a Pro Tem Judge, only to rule on a case they were the parenting coordinator for!

    Imagine the conflict in this case if one party was failed to pay for the PC services for the billing hours, and the subsequent rulings as PC and Judge would give.

    Furthermore, imagine having to pay your judge and PC just to get access to the court, let alone receive a fair trial.

    Wherefore, as stated above, I ask the changes to Rule 74 to include that no retired judicial officer, judge or commissioner, shall serve as a parenting coordinator in family court. I hope the committee would implement this change regarding retired judges becoming PCs, to alleviate any perception of dishonesty by the superior court.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Manola


    pazzino
    Posts:

    --
    11 Jun 2015 02:57 PM
    Michael Manola
    1901 W. Madison #224
    Phoenix, AZ 85009
    623-299-6637
    Michael@tonopahaz.net

    Committee Members,

    If I am not mistaken, understanding the Rule 74 committee and the changes upon the rule that will eliminate court ordered parenting coordinators and keep parenting coordinators only by stipulation of the parties. Again, I would like to thank the committee members for their time and participation to change Rule 74.

    It is clear why some special interest parties would want the delay in effective date... money. Ms. Burns charges $340 per hour according to the court’s parenting coordinator roster. The requested delay for an effective date by Ms. Burns appear to be one last attempt to extract another 16 months of court ordered parenting coordinators on parents for who can’t afford the PC service, hence the very reason for this issue of rule change.

    I disagree with Ms. Burns in having any delayed start date to the new Rule. In fact, it should be placed in effect immediately when approved, in September of 2015. Additionally, it should not allow the continued appointment after the rule is in effect. This would create confusion for the courts and litigants to have some on a different and unequal playing field.

    The Committee has spent valuable time and resources on implementing this change. A delay in the effective date would enable one last run at the trough for special interest parties. The whole point of the rule change is benefiting the parents rather than the businesses.

    If Ms. Burns and her PC business were an affordable, attainable, worthy service for the average parents, private market principles would have clients lined up outside her door, and an effective date in September of 2015 would not matter, nor a court order to require her services.

    We have heard very compelling arguments from Honorable Peter Swann that some want ignore. Some continue to disregard the very legal arguments Judge Swann made in the use of special masters in family court due to monetary incentive and the overreach in scope of PCs duties. In my opinion, what it sounds like is Ms. Burns is advocating the infringement of parent’s constitutional rights as discussed by Judge Swann?

    Just for a moment, for those not serving on the committee, why not do the right thing and stop forcing parents who can’t afford a parenting coordinator upon them now? Can we put children and their parents first instead of special interest groups?

    Delaying the enactment date of the rule 74 changes will only lead to a potential flood of litigants going to the Appellate court on the mere appointment of a PC in the next year and a half. I was of the understanding that one of the court’s ethics is supposed to reduce litigation.

    Sincerely,

    Michael Manola

    keithberkshire
    Posts:

    --
    12 Jun 2015 12:46 PM
    Keith Berkshire, 024107
    BERKSHIRE LAW OFFICE, PLLC
    5050 N. 40th Street, Suite 340
    Phoenix, AZ 85018
    Office: (602) 396-7668
    Fax: (602) 396-7697
    Keith@BerkshireLawOffice.com

    Attachments
    MLynch
    Posts:

    --
    15 Jun 2015 01:46 PM
    Martin Lynch
    Concerned Parents
    National Parents Organization
    AFCC Member
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St Tempe AZ 85281
    602-550-6304
    mdl2222222222@gmail.com


    Motion for Chief Justice Bales to remove Judge Barton and appoint Justice Swann as Committee Chairman for the reasons cited.
    Attachments
    davidalger
    Posts:

    --
    15 Jun 2015 06:20 PM
    David M. Alger
    3131 N 70th St #20202
    Scottsdale, AZ 85251
    602-697-0878
    rule74change@algerfamily.us
    Attachments
    Tango
    Posts:

    --
    15 Jun 2015 06:26 PM
    Terry B Decker
    5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
    Mesa, AZ 85206
    480-352-5294
    t.manndu@gmail.com
    Attachments
    nmwarner51
    Posts:

    --
    15 Jun 2015 06:34 PM
    Hon. Nanette M. Warner(Ret.)
    3060 N. Swan Rd
    Tucson, AZ 85712
    520-325-4200-phone
    520-324-4224--fax
    nwarner@karpweiss.com
    Bar No. 004718
    Attachments
    sgeegieh
    Posts:

    --
    15 Jun 2015 11:02 PM
    Shebli Geegieh
    4572 E Desert Sands Dr
    Chandler , AZ 85249
    480 883 1512
    shebli.geegieh@gmail.com

    Madam Chairperson and Members,

    I agree with the comment made by Terry Decker. Unfortunately, there isn't any statistical information about the performance of the parenting coordinators. However, In my case FC2012-007413 I felt with two different painting coordinators, both of them cost me a lot of money to initiate the case with them as required by the court, then they recommended an action without even bothering to understand the case. forcing me to object with the court and pay more money to have their recommendation dismissed.
    you can review the records of my case to see an example of how the parenting coordinators are failing to do the very reason why they are appointed by the court.
    MLynch
    Posts:

    --
    16 Jun 2015 04:06 PM
    Martin D Lynch
    “Concerned Parents”
    “National Parents Organization”
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St, Tempe AZ, 85281
    602-550-6304
    MDL2222222222@gmail.com


    Notice of Claim of Unconstitutionality of all Existing and Proposed Versions of ARFLP Rule 74 per ARS 12-1841 to be Processed via Appellate Action CV 15-0319
    Attachments
    Fieldengineer
    Posts:

    --
    16 Jun 2015 05:57 PM
    Kenneth Baker
    1002 W. Strahan Dr.
    Tempe, AZ 85283

    citizen of Maricopa County

    My comments are formally submitted with Red text used for insert and strike-throughs for deletion on the attached Parenting Coordinator Comments document authored by the Workgroup.

    My changes should would help address some of the original complaints brought up by
    the citizen's during the open forum. My changes basically improve the parenting
    coordinator's position as a facilitator and not another court appointed professional
    'milking' uncommunicative parents for their money and discourages 'including' other
    professional's to 'assess' the parents. My changes also remove attorney's from
    communicating with the parenting coordinator directly. My changes also require that
    the parents KNOW the actual fees prior to agreeing the stipulation agreement – as cost
    has been the factor driving this rule change.

    My changes did not address "immunity" by Parenting Coordinators, I believe that the Court should be able to hear a complaint about the Coordinator's conduct as applicable to the Parent's interaction with the coordinator. I am for "quasi-immunity" for the Parenting Coordinator position.

    I am not for Attorneys serving as Parenting Coordinators.

    I am not for Attorneys having "Ex-Parte" communications with a Parenting Coordinator.

    I am against all "referral" for "additional services" as many Parenting Coordinators belong to counseling / forensic groups that profit from the referral and "grow" the business. One counseling company scratches the back of other counseling groups with no disclosure of partnerships or kickbacks being given.

    Parenting coordinators should be "specific" to a "stated disagreement" and not have an open ended "agenda" to start fishing expeditions on the "quality" of either parent.

    I also belive that Parenting Coordinator should be referred to as Parenting Counselor or Parenting Facilitator: to allow employee insurance to be used.

    My situation saw abuse and unethical behavior by my "professional court ordered counselors" - I filed nothing, but waited for appointments to end and battled re-appointments and I had all of the "recommendations" overturned by "objecting" and going to court. The Parenting Coordinators did not solve one issue brought by my EX; but it did cost our divorced family close to ten thousand dollars of "services".

    My post was originally submitted on 06/15/15 at 4:15pm, but it appears that cookies were not set properly to record the post. This is the second attempt at 06/16/15 at 3:30pm.
    Attachments
    MLynch
    Posts:

    --
    27 Jun 2015 09:43 PM
    Notice of Violations of the Open Meeting Law

    Martin Lynch
    AFCC Member
    Concerned Parents
    National Parents Organization
    Manager Exceptional Court Services LLC
    Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR
    1039 W 19th St Tempe AZ 85281
    602-550-6304
    mdl2222222222@gmail.com
    Attachments
    Susan Pickard
    New Member
    Posts:9 New Member

    --
    15 Jul 2015 04:40 PM
    Reply

    Honorable Janet Barton
    Parenting Coordinator Rule Petition Review Committee
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    spickard@courts.az.gov

    Attached is the Reply to the second round of comments regarding R-15-0006.
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    20 Aug 2015 02:38 AM
    Martin Lynch
    1120 W Broadway Rd, Apt 55
    Tempe AZ 85282-1255
    602-550-6304

    Everything is Null and Void. (ARS 38-431.05)

    Everyone seems to be acting as if Rule 74 is a done deal. On June 24 the Public Meeting laws were violated. On June 26 the committee was formally notified of the violations. 30 days are allowed in which to ratify and legally preserve the work of the committee. This is a perfect illustration of how nobody in Family Court cares to read the law, let alone follow it.

    Try looking at ARS 38-431 thru ARS 38-431.08 because this is the path we are all going to follow together.

    This is fortunate because the latest version of Rule 74 is riddled with violations of our constitutional rights and leaves our families and children wide open to abuse which is completely unacceptable to We The People and will be nothing but trouble for everyone. Please see the attached document. In an effort to quickly recover from this debacle we offer to this committee and the Justices of the Supreme Court quick and easy solutions that require nothing more than cut and paste so we can all be happy and not have to do hardly any more work or bother.

    Whatever you decide is fine. If you decide you want to slug it out to get judicial immunity out of thin air or endless PC appointments we will be there for you. If you can muster a sound legal argument you might prevail, at least temporarily. But judging from the performance seen thus far from the Family Court team lead by Judge Barton, I wouldn't be too optimistic. The lawsuit prescribed by ARS 38-431.07 is about half done and already has much more detail than the abbreviated highlights presented here.

    Our constitutional rights and the welfare of our families and children will be protected one way or the other, the easy way or the hard way. Which will it be?

    Sincerely,
    Martin Lynch
    Attachments
    Ellen Crowley
    New Member
    Posts:17 New Member

    --
    12 Nov 2015 05:08 PM
    The Honorable Janet Barton, Chair
    Parenting Coordinator Rule Petition Review Committee
    1501 W. Washington St., Ste. 410
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    (602) 452-3252
    SPickard@courts.az.gov

    Petitioner's Motion to Reopen Matter to Revise Rule 97, Forms 9-11, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, to Conform with Amended Rule 74 and Request for Emergency Adoption

    Attachments


    ---