Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



FAQ

Register       Login

ATTENTION: This site has been recently moved. If you had an account on our old forum site, you will have to register a new account here in order to be able to post replies.

 

NEW! The Court acted on many pending rule petitions at its August 29, 2017 Rules Agenda.  

Click on the Amendments from Recent Rules Agendas link below to go directly to the amendments and orders for each one.

Message from the Chief Justice

Current Arizona Rules 

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence


Pending Rules List

         Proposed Local Rules
                 Welcome!
This website allows you to electronically file and monitor court rule petitions and comments and to view existing rules of court, recent amendments of those rules, and pending rule petitions and comments. Any visitor to this site may view posts on this website, but to post a petition or comment you must register and log in. To view instructions on how to register and how to file a petition or comment, please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. 
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext 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
Sort:
Topic is locked
Page 1 of 3123 > >>
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
    Topic is locked
    Page 1 of 3123 > >>