Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 20 May 2016 09:09 PM by  Martin Lynch
R-16-0016 Rule 74 Parenting Coordinators
 2 Replies
Author Messages
Martin Lynch
New Member
Posts:18 New Member

--
08 Jan 2016 03:19 AM
    R-16-0016

    Petition to Amend Rule 74, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure

    No specific amendments are proposed, but the petition raises the idea of allowing behavioral health providers who accept insurance to serve as Parenting Coordinators and other issues relating to public meeting laws

    Petitioner:
    /s/ Martin Lynch
    ACR Member
    AFCC Member
    MCAFM Member
    FixFamilyCourts.com
    National Parents Organization
    ReformFamilyCourtsAZ PAC Chairman
    FCLU.org President of the Arizona Chapter
    General Manager, We The People Court Services LLC
    Board Member and Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR.org
    1120 W Broadway Rd, Apt 55 Tempe AZ 85282-1255
    602-550-6304
    mdl2222222222@gmail.com

    Date of Filing: January 8, 2016

    Comments due on or before May 20, 2016.

    DENIED as well as the request for Public Hearing.
    Attachments
    Patricia L.
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    17 Apr 2016 01:30 PM
    Patricia L. Cummins
    14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, Arizona 85629
    520.730.5650

    Petitioner an American Arizona Family Citizen request and pray this Honorable Arizona Supreme Court Order IMMEDIATE relief, with compelling circumstances and good cause shown, render an EXPEDITED ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE ALL 2015 COURT ORDERS of which ASSIGNED A PARENTING COORDINATOR.

    Respectfully is the request to this Honorable Court to provide Under the Constitution of the United States, equal rights and equal protection of the law regarding the Provisions of the new version of Arizona Rules of Family Law and Procedure Rule 74 effective January 1, 2016, with compelling circumstances and good cause shown, render EXPEDITED ORDER TO IMMEDIATELY VACATE ALL 2015 COURT ORDERS ASSIGNING A PARENTING COORDINATOR.

    If the parties would like to stipulate in writing to a parenting coordinator, they may follow the new Rule 74 directions.

    This disparity of who the new version of Rule 74 effective January 1, 2016 applies to, separates who it applies to and does not apply to, which is unlawful and in conflict with the United States Constitution and “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”

    It is written by our Chief Justice, Arizona judiciary in their '"Advancing Justice Together" booklet:

    “To earn the support of our communities, we who work in the judiciary must continue to exemplify our deep commitment to fairness, integrity, efficiency, and equal justice under law. I look forward to our work in advancing justice together. —Scott Bales, Chief Justice” http://www.azcourts.gov/portals/0/A...therSA.pdf

    Your attention is greatly appreciated.
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    20 May 2016 09:09 PM
    Observation: No opinions objecting to these measures have yet been registered by anyone.

    Request for Public Hearing per SC Rule 28(E) – Request is hereby made.

    This petition R-16-0016 also seeks to have precise language from Lavit v Superior Court inserted into the “Immunity” provisions of both Rule 74 (and Rule 72). Lavit is referenced in Note 3 of ARS 25-406.

    “Activities which are ministerial and not part of the clinical and reporting functions or activities contrary to a court order are unprotected.”

    Petitioner
    /s/ Martin Lynch
    ACR Member
    AFCC Member
    MCAFM Member
    National Parents Organization
    ReformFamilyCourtsAZ PAC Chairman
    FCLU.org President of the Arizona Chapter
    General Manager, We The People Court Services LLC
    Board Member and Chairman of the Legislative Committee – AZFR.org
    1120 W Broadway Rd, Apt 55 Tempe AZ 85282-1255
    602-550-6304
    mdl2222222222@gmail.com

    May 20, 2016
    Attachments


    ---