Go to previous topic
Go to next topic
Last Post 22 May 2019 03:08 PM by  Kay Radwanski
R-19-0009 Pet. to Amend Rule 123, Rules of the Sup. Crt, and Rules of the AZ Rules of Protective Ord. Proced.
 3 Replies
Author Messages
Julie Graber
New Member
Posts:14 New Member

--
09 Jan 2019 03:59 PM
    This petition requests amendment of Rule 123, Rules of the Supreme Court, and Rules 7,10,20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 42 of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure. During the 2018 53rd Legislature, Second Regular Session, House Bill 2249 became law. The bill modifies statutes that govern Orders of Protection (OP), Emergency Orders of Protection (EOP), Injunctions Against Harassment (IAH), and Injunctions Against Workplace Harassment (IAWH). The modifications take effect January 1, 2020. The Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure (ARPOP) guide Arizona courts in the management of these four types of protective orders. To assist courts in implementing the modifications, some of the rules require revision. CIDVC also proposes changes to several rules either to clarify them or to correct omissions.
    Petitioner:
    Honorable Wendy A. Million
    Magistrate, Tucson City Court
    103 E. Alameda
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    Telephone: (520) 791-3260
    Chair, Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts (CIDVC)
    [email protected]

    Would amend Rule 123, Rules of the Supreme Court, and the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure to comply with statutory amendments re: orders of protection and injunctions against harassment.

    Filed: January 9, 2019

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2019.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2019.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend Rule 123, Rules of the Supreme Court, and Rules 7, 10, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 42 of the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure = ADOPTED AS MODIFIED, effective January 1, 2020.
    Attachments
    John Baird
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    25 Apr 2019 10:11 AM
    Proposed rule 31(c) language states "a court must transmit the documents for service to the appropriate law enforcement agency or a constable." This implies the issuing court will transmit the documents directly to the agency. However, with the AOC becoming the holder of record, won't they be transmitting the documents to the serving agency after receiving them from the issuing court? Should the rule language be more specific so it doesn't appear that the issuing court has to choose the servicing agency and send the documents directly to them?

    John Baird
    Pima County Clerk of the Superior Court/IT
    110 W Congress St
    Tucson AZ 85701
    [email protected]
    JJFotinos
    New Member
    Posts:4 New Member

    --
    01 May 2019 04:03 PM
    The Honorable Valerie Wyant
    President
    Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks
    200 N. San Francisco St.
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001
    928-679-7615
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    Kay Radwanski
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    22 May 2019 03:08 PM
    Honorable Wendy Million
    Tucson City Court
    103 E. Alameda
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    Telephone: (520) 791-3260
    Chair, Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts
    Staff: [email protected]

    Petitioner, the Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts (CIDVC), submits this response and amended petition. The amended petition includes two appendices—Appendix B-Amended, offering a revision based upon comments received, and Appendix C, proposing amendments to four court rules necessitated by recently enacted legislation.

    Attachments


    ---