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 Dec 2016 08:58 AM by  Linda Koschney
R-16-0037 Rule 72, Rules of Family Law Procedure
 18 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Patricia Schuler
New Member
Posts:12 New Member

--
18 May 2016 03:34 PM
    R-16-0037

    Petition to Amend Rule 72 of the Rules of Family Law Procedure

    Would (1) preclude the trial court from appointing a family law master on its own motion without the agreement of the parties ; (2) clarify that the court may not appoint a family law master to serve as a parenting coordinator; and (3) clarify that the court may not delegate to a family law master the court's judicial authority to make decisions concerning legal decision making or parenting time

    Petitioners:
    Hon. Peter B. Swann
    Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals
    1501 W. Washington Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
    Family Court Presiding Judge
    Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
    201 W. Jefferson Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85003

    Request for Permission to File the Petition Outside the Rule 28 Timeline

    Filed: May 18, 2016
    Request Granted 5/19/2016.
    Comments due on or before July 5, 2016.

    CONTINUED. A revised version will be circulated for comments. Comments due October 28, 2016.

    ADOPTED ad modified, effective January 1, 2017.
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    20 May 2016 09:37 PM
    Observation: No opinions objecting to these measures have yet been registered by anyone. Granted R-16-0037 is somewhat recent.

    Request for Public Hearing per SC Rule 28(E) – Request is hereby made and applies to both R-16-0030 and R-16-0037. Both measures seek to protect the Public from harm and it is reasonable to cover all topics related to Rule 72 in the same forum.

    Ref: Petition R-16-0030 seeks to have precise language from Lavit v Superior Court inserted into the “Immunity” provisions of both Rule 72 and Rule 74. 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
    Patricia L.
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    30 May 2016 09:28 AM
    Patricia L. Cummins
    14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, Arizona 85629
    520.730.5650


    Request that if this Rule Change is passed, it be deemed law immediately effective on that date. Request the rule dictate that if there is a current court appointed "master" who was ordered on a case before this Rule change, they be immediately removed from the case and the parties may consent to an appointment following this new rule procedures as of the date of the Rule Change( immediately). Making this change protects all the parties and offers equal protection of the law for all the reasons stated in the Petition for the change.

    A similar request was made to the Supreme Court in April 2016, after the new Rule 74 regarding Parent Coordinators went into effect Jan 1, 2016, to allow those with an assigned PC from 2015, to either stipulate to keep the PC or not agree and therefore end the assignment, but it was denied byJustice Clint Bolick. The new change for Rule 74 only protects the new assignments while those forced on objection in 2015 due to many issues inclusive of inability to pay, and use and abuse of opposing party and their counsel increasing expenditures, must complete the term of the 2015 assignment.


    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
    Arizona Supreme Court
    No. R-16-0016
    FILED 04/18/2016

    Patricia L. Cummins , who submitted a comment in the above
    matter, has also filed a 'Motion to Vacate All Court Orders Assigning
    a Parenting Coordinator in 2015 Im-mediately. After consideration,
    IT IS ORDERED denying the motion.
    DATED this 18th day of April, 2016.

    CLINT BOLICK
    Duty Justice
    Attachments
    Annette
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    05 Jul 2016 02:59 PM
    Barry L. Brody, Bar No. 005227
    Barry L. Brody, P.C.
    5050 East Thomas Road
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-381-0111
    blb@divorceaz.com;


    Annette T. Burns, Bar No. 009871
    Law Office of Annette T. Burns
    2600 North Central Avenue
    Suite 900
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    602-230-9118
    annette@btlawyers.com;

    Aris J. Gallios, Bar No. 010619
    Gallios Law Firm, P.C.
    3131 East Camelback Road
    Suite 230
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    602-274-7272
    aris@gallioslaw.com;

    Helen R. Davis, Bar No. 018309
    The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.C.
    1850 North Central Avenue
    Suite 2400
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    602-322-4008
    hdavis@cavanaghlaw.com;

    Keith A. Berkshire, Bar No. 024107
    Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
    5050 North 40th Street
    Suite 340
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-396-7668
    keith@berkshirelawoffice.com;

    On behalf of other interested parties as listed in the Petition.






    Attachments
    Michael Shew
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    15 Jul 2016 02:42 PM
    I object to the relief requested in the Petition to Amend Rule 72 and I join in the Comment to Petition to Amend Ariz.R.Fam.L.P.72 filed by the AAML and other family law attorneys. In cases where the issues necessitate one and there is a financial ability to afford one, a family court judge should have the discretion to appoint a Family Law Master over the objection of a party to address issues and claims arising under Title 25, including legal decision-making and parenting time (subject, of course, to the limitations in Nold and DePasquale . Family Law Masters provide a valuable service to Arizona citizens, and to the Court to relieve congestion and to facilitate the purposes of Title 25. The changes proposed by the Petitioners are likely to have the unintended effect of depriving litigants of fair and thorough consideration of complex issues that regularly arise in family court proceedings. The superior court, particularly in Maricopa County, does not always have the time, experience, skill, or resources to adjudicate all issues in every case. It has not been my experience that the current version of Rule 72 is being abused or that Family Law Masters are being appointed in such a manner as to deprive litigants of access to the justice system. Litigants in family court cases should have the same right to ask the Court to appoint a qualified individual to provide assistance to the family court in the same manner that litigants in other civil cases have always enjoyed. It is my preference that Rule 72 should not be amended but if Rule 72 is going to be amended, the changes proposed by the Group are a reasonable compromise that will meet the objectives of the Petitioners while preserving the family court's discretion.

    Michael J. Shew
    Certified Family Law Specialist
    State Bar of Arizona, Board of Legal Specialization

    Michael J. Shew, Ltd.
    15835 South 46th Street, Suite 136
    Phoenix, Arizona 85048-0446
    Ph: (480) 940-3636
    Fax: (480) 940-3646
    www.michaelshew.com
    Annette
    New Member
    Posts:2 New Member

    --
    18 Jul 2016 02:26 PM
    Barry L. Brody, Bar No. 005227
    Barry L. Brody, P.C.
    5050 East Thomas Road
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-381-0111
    blb@divorceaz.com;


    Annette T. Burns, Bar No. 009871
    Law Office of Annette T. Burns
    2600 North Central Avenue
    Suite 900
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    602-230-9118
    annette@btlawyers.com;

    Aris J. Gallios, Bar No. 010619
    Gallios Law Firm, P.C.
    3131 East Camelback Road
    Suite 230
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    602-274-7272
    aris@gallioslaw.com;

    Helen R. Davis, Bar No. 018309
    The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.C.
    1850 North Central Avenue
    Suite 2400
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    602-322-4008
    hdavis@cavanaghlaw.com;

    Keith A. Berkshire, Bar No. 024107
    Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
    5050 North 40th Street
    Suite 340
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-396-7668
    keith@berkshirelawoffice.com;

    On behalf of other interested parties as listed in the Comment.

    This Supplemental Comment adds additional attorney names who support the Comment filed on July 5, 2016.
    Attachments
    Patricia Schuler
    New Member
    Posts:12 New Member

    --
    04 Aug 2016 04:11 PM
    Petitioners:
    Hon. Peter B. Swann
    Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals
    1501 W. Washington Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85007

    Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
    Family Court Presiding Judge
    Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
    201 W. Jefferson Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85003
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    26 Sep 2016 01:03 AM
    Violations of ER 6.4 - Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest

    Plaintiff apologizes for not scanning this forum prior to completing this draft of his Bar Complaint and Federal Notice attached herein. Plaintiff failed to notice the desperate pleas of Michael Shew which has been added to the other desperate pleas of lawyers who wish to continue to legally steal money from clients who do not wish to be their clients.
    Please be assured that Mr Shew has not been slighted and he is also named in the same Bar Complaint as the other attorneys who have also violated ER 6.4 - Failure to disclose their conflict of interest which is rooted in their desperate need to force clients to pay them money who do not wish to be their clients. This shall also serve as the Federal Younger Notice for Mr Shew should the Chief Justice wish to force legal stealing upon the people of Arizona by means of ARFLP Rule 72 or if the State Bar decides that they do not wish to enforce their own rules to protect the public from this misconduct, fraud by omission.
    Plaintiff has all the necessary tools to ensure the efficacy of any action before the US District Court of Arizona on 4th Ave or the 9th Circuit as the need requires. Plaintiff believes that everyone should get what they want and be happy.

    Plaintiff
    /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
    PO Box 25784 Tempe AZ 85285
    602-550-6304
    mlcontact@wethepeoplecourtservicesaz.org

    September 26, 2016
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    26 Sep 2016 01:13 PM
    More and More Lawyers Violating ER 6.4 – Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest

    Plaintiff has noted that Annette Burns has added even more names of lawyers who wish to join her in her misconduct of violating ER 6.4 by failing to disclose their conflict of interest, seeking the Chief Justice to allow them via ARFLP Rule 72 to legally steal money from clients, who do not wish to be their clients. Plaintiff now counts some 60 Attorney Defendants who wish to join Annette Burns in her ethical misconduct plus State Bar Defendants should they choose not to police their members, plus Supreme Court Defendants should they choose to allow sua sponte appointments of lawyers to deplete the life savings of families in crisis while providing no measurable benefits.
    The concern is that Plaintiff might go broke serving all these defendants in the resulting action in Federal Court or that the court room might not be large enough for all of them. If Annette Burns keeps this up, this case might have to become a “mass tort” or perhaps even a “class action”. All these people have liability insurance. This could be the biggest thing since the Tobacco Settlement.
    Of greater concern is the liberty of the People. None of us are free if an unrestrained Judiciary can appoint their lawyer friends to create chaos and mayhem to churn billable hours infinitum until every dollar they have or ever will have, is gone. To be fair, not all lawyers are totally corrupt and some do render some positive benefits. But the fact is there are powerful financial incentives for corruption and little or no effective oversight to protect the people. Plaintiff asserts that we are far better off to pull the plug on the whole thing than to throw away our liberty.
    60+ Attorneys led by Annette Burns have demonstrated their ignorance and contempt for the rules of ethical conduct. Plaintiff needs to do nothing to build a case against these people. They are doing a fine job all by themselves.

    Plaintiff
    /s/ Martin Lynch
    PO Box 25784 Tempe AZ 85285
    602-550-6304
    mlcontact@wethepeoplecourtservicesaz.org

    September 26, 2016
    Edwin
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    14 Oct 2016 02:06 PM
    I, in its entirety, agree to amend Rule 72. Since its inception, it has been used by countless mental health professionals to misappropriate funds and report false information in order to prolong litigation. Specifically, financial incentives for therapists assigned to perform therapeutic interventions and custody evaluations have led to separated families and more families clinging to poverty's edge.
    Speaking as an involved parent, litigant and concerned American citizen, it is time to relinquish the immunity status these representatives of the court are allowed to wield. Of grave concern are the countless children abandoned to broken homes where a long psychotherapist can file an endless stream of court reports and the payee is left with no itemization of charges and even less recourse to dispute these charges. If a party does not pay, they are deemed irresponsible and not cooperating with Master's recommendations. These recommendations often come as an admonishment from the Judge. Collaborating with BIA's and other court officers also granted Rule 72 privileges, false reporting and perjury run amok in each case. Giving already cash-strapped parties the opportunity to "opt out" of mandatory Master appointments would give American families the space and litigation legroom to meet jointly to handle family dilemmas.

    I am, again, in support of amending Rule 72.

    Thank you,

    Ed Pizarro Sr.
    42424 N Gavilan Peak Pkwy
    Anthem, AZ 85086
    MasonV620@live.com

    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    17 Oct 2016 08:06 PM
    The opposition to this reasonable reform to Rule 72 has two problems 1) failure to disclose conflict of interest as required by ER 6.4 and other Ethical Rules now being investigated by the State Bar, complaint number 16-3179. 2) Any reasonable person may read Article 6 of the Arizona Constitution which outlines the responsibilities and duties of the Courts and Judges who are typically appointed by the Governor. Nowhere in Article 6 does it grant authority to delegate or transfer Judicial authority from a duly appointed and sworn Judge to "an attorney or otherwise qualified person" especially over the objection of either litigant. Such a scheme to circumvent and undermine the judicial system as described by the Constitution should be frightening to anyone expecting their rights to be protected under the Rule of Law.

    This undermining of the judicial system does not seem to be a concern to Annette Burns or any of her 100 attorney friends, perhaps because they stand to profit from this transfer of the judicial process from the court room to lawyers who charge litigants $300+/hr to serve as judges appointed contrary to the means prescribed by the Constitution. This neatly ties everything together, bringing us full circle to Bar Complaint #16-3179.

    An attorney and the judge both have a JD degree. Expertise or a degree in forensic accounting would make more sense for the role of Family Law Master in determining an equitable division of marital assets. Assigning the case to a $300/hr attorney who does not lawfully hold the title of judge must be deemed contrary to the form and the intent of the Constitution.

    If Annette Burns wishes to become a judge, she should read Article 6 of the Constitution and do what it says.

    Martin Lynch
    1120 W Broadway Rd, #55
    Tempe AZ 85282
    mlcontact@wethepeoplecourtservicesaz.org
    602-550-6304
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    17 Oct 2016 09:28 PM
    How Many Appointments is Too Many?

    SHELDON 177
    BURNS 165
    WEINSTOCK 97
    HYATT 71
    JOY 57
    KIFFMEYER 55

    The above is Minute Entry appointment data for Parenting Coordinators under Rule 74. The court records list over 100 providers that received appointments but only these six noted above have more than 40 appointments. The average for the entire list is 13 appointments each.

    How may Family Law Master appointments can one person service before the quality of service must be undermined? Why can’t Annette Burns be assigned and process all 1400 PC appointments herself? Answer: To think that one person could properly handle 1400 appointments would be ridiculous. Therefore we must agree that some maximum number of appointments of Family Law Masters and PCs should be established to protect the welfare of the public.

    Proposed Protection: The court shall publish a roster of Family Law Masters which includes the number of active appointments and establish a maximum at some reasonable number.

    How does Annette Burns have time to voluminously file into this forum with 165 PC appointments to take care of? What is the level of customer satisfaction for all 165 of her current clients? Are they all happy with her level and quality of service? How do we know? Does it even matter?

    Martin Lynch
    1120 W Broadway Rd, #55
    Tempe AZ 85282
    mlcontact@wethepeoplecourtservicesaz.org
    602-550-6304
    Attachments
    Patricia L.
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    17 Oct 2016 09:57 PM
    Patricia L. Cummins
    14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, AZ 85269

    Regarding: R-16-0037

    Petition to Amend Rule 72 of the Rules of Family Law Procedure

    Would (1) preclude the trial court from appointing a family law master on its own motion without the agreement of the parties ; (2) clarify that the court may not appoint a family law master to serve as a parenting coordinator; and (3) clarify that the court may not delegate to a family law master the court's judicial authority to make decisions concerning legal decision making or parenting time

    Petitioners:
    Hon. Peter B. Swann
    Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals

    Hon. Paul J. McMurdie
    Family Court Presiding Judge
    Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County

    I agree with the Amendment suggested which precludes the trial court from appointing a family law master on its own motion without the agreement of the parties, and the family law master shall not be able to serve as a parenting coordinator, and no judicial authority shall be delegated.
    My further comment is inserted below:
    Rule 72: Powers: The Master may deal with any issues pursuant to Title 25 A.R.S., that could be presented to the assigned Judge including post-decree matters. The Master (who is paid by the parties, and is NOT a Judge) shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in every hearing before the master and do all acts and take all the measures necessary or proper (like what?) for the efficient performance of the master's duties under the order. The Master (paid for by the parties) may require the production of evidence upon all matters embraced in the reference. (why not, they are paid for the time...by the parties-who are deemed can "afford" to pay the compensation of the Master) The Master rules on the admissibility of the evidence, has authority to place witnesses under oath and may examine the parties and witnesses….it just really sounds like COURT-which is free!! oh, and with a Judge.
    BUT, if you do not agree with the Master, you can object and then do it all over again in Court-with a Judge!! And, pay your attorney again, and possibly go bankrupt.
    There has not been a limit on case load numbers set for Parenting Coordinators-some having 322 people to "coordinate" in addition to their Family Law Practice…not possible. There must be no third parties and if there must be more Judges to do the work, then as Judge Swann states, fix that problem, and hire more Judges.

    By all the PC Attorneys, mostly this Annette Burns attorney, who did not appear to like the Rule 74 Parenting Coordinator change, who then presented at the Arizona Bar Conference in January 2016 to teach how to now be a family “Special Master”, since Families can now say NO to a Parenting Coordinator. Ms. Burns files on this forum AZCourts.gov how the courts need them/her, seriously? No, the families do not need them. She needs to stop. She is not a Judge and no one wants her to be. The families she was involved with as a Parenting Coordinator confide she was toxic to their families and children.
    The attorneys appear to have an ethical code of conduct conflict of interest, as they have not disclosed their income taxes to show how much they made as a Parenting Coordinator or disclose how much they will make as a Family Special Master being an attorney, or how this forced assignment based on ability to pay Rule will benefit them financially.
    What appears to be, is another invasion of third parties into families’ lives that have no business to be in them at all.
    The Issues that remain for Rule 72 Family “Special Masters” and [Rule 74 Parenting Coordinators as well] and have a strong necessity to be addressed are as follows:
    1. No regulation of family special masters by the Judge or Courts,
    2. The Courts do not keep track of assignments or limit the number of assignments, which must be recorded and available as Public Record kept by the Court and made available upon request.
    3. Judicial Function shall not be assigned to an attorney, AZ State Constitution
    4. No Immunity: The Family Special Master has liability and accountability for her conduct and the right of victims to receive compensation for their injuries. See Chamberlain v. Mathis, 151 Ariz. at 558, 729 P.2d at 912. The underlying concept dictating restraint in granting immunity was expressed by our supreme court as follows: There is perhaps no doctrine more firmly established than the principle that liability follows tortious wrongdoing; that where [such wrongdoing] is the proximate cause of injury, the rule is liability and immunity is the exception. The risk and expense of defending one's actions is inherent in the business of offering on the open market one's professional services.
    5. Obtain a Fingerprint Clearance Card (School bus drivers have fingerprint clearance cards and also have medical clearance)
    6. Family Masters shall take drug tests, and hair follicle alcohol tests, and divulge all diagnoses, medical and psychological, all results are public record (some attorneys benefit from MAP program with the AZ State Bar)
    7. Must take MMPI 2, Psych Evaluations to prove safety to work with Children and Families, all results public
    8. No psychopaths or other dangerous diagnoses allowed to work with children and families (some attorneys benefit from MAP program with the AZ State Bar) this is private
    9. Limit assignments to 3 families, if high need, then you cannot hold 100 cases (Annette Burns), had over 150 PC cases in a year and she did not know what was going on with all them, submitted false reports to the court -no accountability for it, but damage to children and families were provided, along with protracted litigation.
    10. Limit Assignment to one month
    11. No communication with attorneys ex parte
    12. Free family special master assistance pro bono.
    13. Survey by independent company on each provider, after each meeting-like Judges except EVERY case must do the survey on the Master for effectiveness of that person.
    14. Limit emails, more in person meetings, done or resolved in one month or return case to the courts
    15. Not appropriate to use these people in High Conflict divorces
    16. No Attorney should be allowed to be a Family Special Master, no child or family expertise
    17. Redundant, upon Objection, return to Court to do it all again, and the attorneys get paid again to do it again in Court.
    18. No “out” for Parents and Families who are forced into having to use these people against their agreement.
    19. No process for complaints for the Judge who assigns a Family Special Master, there needs to be a disclosure such as a signed contract of who will be accountable for the complaints, misconduct, fraud on the court, and impropriety of this person, whether it be the Judge, Board of Psychological Examiners, Board of Behavioral Health, Attorney General, or Arizona State Bar.
    20. No accountability when the “Master’s “Recommendations are Rejected by the Judge, they should be ordered to refund the money charged for their inaccurate path/bought perceptions and be charged with Fraud on the Court.
    21. Attorneys have no training/understanding in dynamics of families, a 6 hour class or checked out CD and pledging you watched it is not enough. There are specialized areas of practice for Doctors in this area.
    22. Attorneys are not Judges, and they should not be able to do the Judges’ job.
    23. Abolish the use of these family special masters. Problem Solved.

    Thank you,
    Patricia Cummins
    Attachments
    Patricia L.
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    20 Oct 2016 06:43 AM
    Patricia L. Cummins
    14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, Arizona 85629
    520.730.5650


    Adding the amended Rule for everyone to view for comment. The best view is in PDF attached.
    Thank you,
    Patricia Cummins

    SCOITBALES
    CHIEF JUSTICE
    September 2, 2016
    $>Upreme (!Court
    STATE OF ARIZONA
    ARIZONA STATE COURTS 8UILOING
    1501 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, SU1TE402
    PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007-3231
    TELEPHONE: (602) 452-3396
    RE: RULE 72, RULES OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE
    Arizona Supreme Court No. R-16-0037
    GREETINGS:
    JANET JOHNSON
    CLERK OF THE COURT
    The following action was taken by the Supreme Court of the State
    of Arizona on August 29, 2016, in regard to the above-referenced
    cause:
    WOULD (1) PRECLUDE THE TRIAL COURT FROM APPOINTING A FAMILY LAW
    MASTER ON ITS OWN MOTION WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES;
    (2) CLARIFY THAT THE COURT MAY NOT APPOINT A FAMILY LAW MASTER
    TO SERVE AS A PARENTING COORDINATOR; AND (3) CLARIFY THAT THE
    COURT MAY NOT DELEGATE TO A FAMILY LAW MASTER THE COURT'S
    JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS CONCERNING LEGAL DECISION
    MAKING OR PARENTING TIME
    ORDERED: Request for Public Hearing = DENIED.
    FURTHER ORDERED: Request for Hearing on Petition = DENIED.
    ORDERED: Petition to Amend Rule 72 of the Rules of Family Law
    Procedure = CONTINUED to December 2016 rules agenda. A revised
    version will be circulated for comment until October 28, 2016.
    To find a copy of the minutes and orders click here.
    Janet Johnson, Clerk
    Arizona Supreme Court No. R-16-0037
    Page 2 of 2
    TO:
    Hon Peter B Swann
    Hon Paul J McMurdie
    Martin Lynch
    Patricia L Cummins
    Barry L Brody
    Annette T Burns
    Aris J Gallios
    Helen R Davis
    Keith Berkshire
    Michael J Shew
    adc
    SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
    In the Matter of
    RULE 72, ARIZONA RULES OF FAMILY
    LAW PROCEDURE
    Arizona Supreme Court
    No. R-16-00-37
    FILED: 09/02/2016
    ORDER
    REGARDING RULE 72, ARIZONA RULES OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE
    A petition having been filed proposing to amend Rule 7 2, Arizona
    Rules of Family Law Procedure, and comments having been received,
    upon consideration,
    IT IS ORDERED that this matter be continued until the Court's
    December 2016 Rules Agenda and that the attached revised version of
    the proposed rule be reopened for comment, with comments due October
    28, 2016, in accordance with Rule 28(0), Rules of the Supreme Court
    of Arizona.
    DATED this day of September , 2016.
    /s/
    SCOTT BALES
    Chief Justice
    Page3of4
    ATTACHMENT
    (new language is underlined and deletions are struck through)
    Rules of Family Law Procedure
    Rule 72. Family Law Master.
    A. Appointment and Compensation. Upon stipulation and application by the parties, or
    on the court's own motion, the court may appoint a family law master who is an attorney
    or other professional with education, experience, and special expertise regarding the
    particular issues to be referred to the master. The compensation to be allowed to a master
    shall be fixed by the court. The parties may stipulate to a particular family law master and
    the amount of compensation, but the court must approve the family law master and
    compensation, and the court shall review the qualifications of the family law master prior
    to appointment. Compensation of the family law master shall be allocated by the com1
    and shall be treated as a taxable cost. The court may not appoint a family law master over
    a paity's objection unless the court determines and makes findings that the parties can
    afford to pay the compensation fixed by the court.
    B. Powers. The order of reference appointing a family law master shall specify the
    particular issues referred to the family law master and shall fix the time and place for
    beginning and closing the hearings and for filing the master's report. An appointment
    under this rule may not direct a master to perform services within the scope of Rule 7 4 or
    otherwise make decisions or recommendations concerning legal decision-making or
    parenting time. Other than legal decision-making and parenting time, +!he master may
    deal with any issues pursuant to Title 25, A.R.S., that could be presented to the assigned
    judge including post-decree matters. Subject to any limitations in the order, the master
    shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in every hearing before the master
    and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient performance
    of the master's duties under the order. The master may require the production of evidence
    upon all matters embraced in the reference. The master may rule upon the admissibility
    of evidence, unless otherwise directed by the order of reference, and has the authority to
    place witnesses under oath and may examine the parties and witnesses. When a party
    requests, the master shall cause a record to be made of. the evidence offered and excluded
    in the same manner and subject to the same limitations as provided in Rule 104, Arizona
    Page 4 of4
    Rules of Evidence, for a court sitting without a jury. The cost of the record shall be paid
    by the parties as allocated by the court and shall be a treated as a taxable cost.
    C. through F. [No change in text.]
    G. Court Actions. If no objection is filed by either party pursuant to this rule, the
    master's report shall become an order of the court, unless the court on its own motion sets
    a hearing upon a particular issue in the report within ten (10) days after the time for filing
    an objection has passed. If the master's report covers all issues in the case, and no
    objection if filed and the court does not set a hearing, the court shall enter judgment on
    the master's report. In the event any objection(s) are filed, the court may set oral
    argument on the objection(s), adopt the report, modify it, reject it in whole or in part or
    may receive further evidence. The court shall hold a hearing or enter an order in
    connection with any objection to the master's report within thirty (30) days of the filing of
    the response or other ordered pleading to such objection.
    H. through L. [No change in text.]
    Attachments
    Linda Koschney
    New Member
    Posts:43 New Member

    --
    27 Oct 2016 01:58 PM
    Barry Brody, Bar #005227
    Barry L. Brody, P.C.
    5050 East Thomas Road
    Phoenix, AZ 85018
    Ph: 602-381-0111

    Annette T. Burns, Bar No. 009871
    Law Office of Annette T. Burns
    2600 North Central Avenue
    Suite 900
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    602-230-9118
    annette@btlawyers.com;
    blb@divorceaz.com

    Aris J. Gallios, Bar No. 010619
    Gallios Law Firm, P.C.
    3131 East Camelback Road
    Suite 230
    Phoenix, Arizona 85016
    602-274-7272
    aris@gallioslaw.com;

    Helen R. Davis, Bar No. 018309
    The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.C.
    1850 North Central Avenue
    Suite 2400
    Phoenix, Arizona 85004
    602-322-4008
    hdavis@cavanaghlaw.com;

    Keith A. Berkshire, Bar No. 024107
    Berkshire Law Office, PLLC
    5050 North 40th Street
    Suite 340
    Phoenix, Arizona 85018
    602-396-7668
    keith@berkshirelawoffice.com;

    Alexander Poulos, Bar No. 012319
    Tiffany & Bosco, PA
    2525 East Camelback Road
    Floor 7
    Phoenix, AZ 85016
    ap@tblaw.com

    On behalf of other interested parties as listed in the Petition.
    Attachments
    Martin Lynch
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    27 Oct 2016 11:33 PM
    Oct 27, 2016

    First we had lawyers violating ER 6.4 – Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest. A complaint was posted on this forum and then filed with the State Bar 16-3179. Plaintiff met with the investigator at the State Bar Oct 14 to discuss these infractions.
    Ethical Rule ER 6.4 is http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/Rulesof...Rule?id=55

    After being previously noticed on this forum, today yet another example of the same lawyers who continue to violate ER 6.4 was posted on this forum. On Page 2 “Appointment Findings” the lawyers led by Brody and Burns state how necessary it is to make third party appointments if the people can afford to pay even if they object. No place in their document do Brody and Burns use the term “money” and why not? That is clearly what this entire matter revolves around, piles and piles of money for lawyers even if their victims object.

    On Page 5 “Conclusion” lawyers Brody and Burns tout themselves as “experts” in their field and members of a prestigious sounding organization consisting of divorce lawyers. No place in their document do they use the term “ethical” and why should they? This is the farthest thing from their minds. The State Bar is lawyers regulating the ethical conduct of lawyers. Their document is not just a petition to the Supreme Court. Their document is “evidence” that Brody and Burns and Co clearly have complete disregard for the Rules of Ethical Conduct for their profession. They feel completely protected by the State Bar who they see as no threat since lawyers cannot be expected to hinder other lawyers seeking piles of money.

    Their document is “evidence” which proves that the oversight of ethical conduct of attorneys by attorneys at the State Bar is ineffectual and therefore a danger to the public. The very existence of an ethical code of conduct is a fraudulent misrepresentation to the public that somebody is protecting them from fraud and abuse when in fact there are no protections and the Public is completely at the mercy of these people who seek piles of money regardless of the consent of their victims.

    The problem goes far beyond Rule 72. We need to come up with a method of regulating the ethical conduct of attorneys that is effective and protects the Public from abuse.

    Plaintiff
    /s/ Martin Lynch
    1120 W Broadway Rd, Apt 55 Tempe AZ 85282
    602-550-6304
    mlcontact@wethepeoplecourtservicesaz.org
    Attachments
    Alger, David
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    28 Oct 2016 05:26 PM
    David Alger
    Executive Director
    Arizona Children and Families Foundation
    4400 N Scottsdale Rd Suite 9757
    Scottsdale, AZ 85257

    Vicki Alger
    Vice President for Research
    Arizona Children and Families Foundation
    4400 N Scottsdale Rd Suite 9757
    Scottsdale, AZ 85257


    I urge the Court to adopt the originally proposed change to Rule 72 by Judges Swann and McMurdie.

    The rules of the court are required to be administrative only and not affect substantive rights of parties, as stated in ARS 12-109(A): "The rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify substantive rights of a litigant.".

    Rule 72 in its current form has been used abusively to override the substantive rights of parties as a matter of course, particularly in Pima and Maricopa County Superior Courts. Further, the normal practice of the superior courts in Arizona has been to make appointments under Rule 72 (as it did abusively under the former Rule 74) requiring parties to submit to an appointee, to surrender rights to the appointee under threat of judicial retaliation including loss of parenting time and decision-making authority, to surrender rights of confidentiality regarding health and other aspects of their lives, and many more areas of summary restriction or removal of substantive rights.

    Further, the superior courts in Arizona exercise nearly no substantial oversight of appointees under Rule 72, offering an egregious and irresponsible opportunity for abuse which is often manifest.

    The court also has demonstrated its willingness to publish false information and severely damaged its credibility to self police. As an example, in the last legislative session the court's legislative liaison claimed falsely to legislators that Court Appointed Advisors are appointed at the cost of the court. During legislative committee hearings evidence showed that in fact the costs of CAAs are regularly ordered to be paid by parties in family court and in January 2016 alone over 73 such orders for payment were issued in Maricopa County alone.

    In Pima County the Clerk of the Court has admitted that the court keeps no records of appointees and has no idea how many appointments are made and what costs they charge parties.

    When such basic information is either not tracked or falsified in communication with the Legislature, it is unreasonable to believe that the courts can be trusted to properly regulate the appointments under Rule 72.

    Appointments under Rule 72 are regularly conducted without any true investigation of the appropriateness of the need, the qualification of the appointee, or the ability of the parties to pay, as is required under Due Process rights. A letter published to the courts of the States this year by the US Department of Justice warns the courts and executive branches of the States of the widespread abuse of Due Process rights, and the long history of arbitrary and abusive application of Rule 72 in Arizona is a prime example that demands rectification.

    The question that will be answered in the long term is this: Will the Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court restrict the scope of the Rules to their proper administrative arena, or will they force a confrontation in federal court of the constitutional issue of violation of substantive rights?

    The court's own proposal is a small step in the needed reigning in of past abusive habits. However, conformance of Rule 72 to the actual requirement to not "abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights" will not be served unless the Swann/McMurdie petition and its contents are enacted.
    Peter Swann
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    10 Dec 2016 04:00 PM
    Honorable Peter B. Swann
    Honorable Paul J. McMurdie
    Judges, Arizona Court of Appeals
    1501 W. Washington St.
    Phoeniz, AZ 85007

    Petitioners respectfully submit the attached reply in response to the Court's proposed revision to the petition.
    Attachments
    Linda Koschney
    New Member
    Posts:43 New Member

    --
    12 Dec 2016 08:58 AM
    Marguerite Patterson
    Pmargo27@gmail.com
    804 W. Emerald Island
    Gilbert, AZ 85233
    (480)241-2596
    Attachments
    Topic is locked