FAQ

Register       Login

YOUR HELP NEEDED: If you find a cross-reference that does not match the rule or subsection it refers to or any apparent clerical errors, please let us know by sending a precise description to [email protected].




Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

 

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. 

PLEASE READ - CONTACT INFORMATION: 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION WHEN SUBMITTING A RULE PETITION OR COMMENT.  OTHERWISE, YOUR SUBMISSION MAY BE REJECTED AND WE WILL BE UNABLE TO ADVISE YOU AS TO WHY. 

     
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 29 May 2020 12:51 PM by  Ursula
R-19-0045 Rules 38 and 39 AZ Rules of Protective Order Procedure
 5 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Ursula
New Member
Posts:5 New Member

--
05 Dec 2019 12:29 PM
    My Name: Ursula M. Johnston
    Address: 2265 East LaCosta Place, Chandler, AZ 85249
    Phone: 480-993-3921 (home phone)
    email: [email protected]
    AZ BAR: not applicable

    Would amend Rules of Protective Order Procedure 38 and 39 concerning first-time plaintiffs filing for Orders of Protection to lower the standard of proof at contested hearings; limit courts' discretion in dismissing or modifying such orders; and dismiss attorney fees claims.

    Filed December 5, 2019.

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2020.

    Replies must be submitted on or before June 1, 2020.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend 17B A.R.S. Arizona Rules Protective Order Procedure Part VIII Rule 38 and Rule 39 = DENIED.
    Attachments
    Kay Radwanski
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 09:21 AM
    Honorable Wendy A. Million
    Magistrate, Tucson City Court
    103 E. Alameda
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    Chair, Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts (CIDVC)
    Staff: [email protected]
    Telephone: (602) 452-3360

    The Committee on the Impact of Domestic Violence and the Courts (CIDVC) discussed this petition at its February 11, 2020, meeting. CIDVC does not agree with this petition and notes that the protective order rules are written to implement statutory requirements.
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:88 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 12:00 PM
    Comment of the State Bar of Arizona.

    Lisa M. Panahi, Bar No. 023421
    General Counsel
    State Bar of Arizona
    4201 N. 24th Street, Suite 100
    Phoenix, AZ 85016-6288
    (602) 340-7236
    [email protected]
    Attachments
    Ursula
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    29 May 2020 11:41 AM
    Ursula Johnston
    480-993-3921
    [email protected]

    This is Ursula Johnston's reply. Ursula is the author of this petition. Phone 480-993-3921

    First, thank you for reviewing this important petition and commenting. However, I question the existence of a specific statutory requirement that is implemented in accordance with what this petition would address and resolve for individuals who have an order of protection. If there are rules written to implement statutory requirements, where are they? Are they shared with those seeking or having an order of protection? Are local authorities and judges aware of the rules and do they apply them consistently? I can tell you from personal experience and from doing the research that the rules do not exist or are not applied consistently. As such, innocent people suffer and are exposed to danger.

    I can't help but think that if such statutory requirements exist, Charles Vallow might be alive today. If Mr. Vallow’s order of protection had remained active, perhaps the whereabouts and welfare of his children, Joshua Vallow and Tylee Ryan, would be known.

    Ending an order of protection too soon often has dire consequences. R-19-0045 is about safety and awareness. It is about saving lives and preventing harm. I ask the court to refrain from a cursory dismissal of this petition and to consider its positive impact on prevention, safety and awareness. Also, this petition, if enacted, is cost-neutral, reduces administrative burdens on the courts, and bolsters law enforcement’s ability to protect the public.

    Further, I ask the Supreme Court and CIDVC (in particular) to be more engaging of individuals dealing with matters involving orders of protection, and more proactive in bringing forth solutions to chronic problems of awareness and inconsistent due process regarding obtaining and keeping orders of protection active ---- for the safety of all involved.

    Thank you.
    Ursula
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    29 May 2020 11:51 AM
    Ursula Johnston
    480-993-3921
    [email protected]

    This is Ursula Johnston. I am the author and submitter of this petition. My contact information: phone 480-993-3921. Email [email protected]

    Thank you, Ms. Panahi, for posting a comment regarding R-19-0045. However, I do not see any written comment. I ask the court to supply the comment so I can have the opportunity to review and reply. Thank you.
    Ursula
    New Member
    Posts:5 New Member

    --
    29 May 2020 12:51 PM
    Ursula Johnston
    480-993-3921
    [email protected]


    This reply is from Ursula Johnston, the author and submitter of R-19-0045. Phone: 480-993-3921. Email [email protected]

    First, thank you for reviewing and commenting on this petition.

    Contrary to the contention that this petition would open the doors to abuse of the judicial system, it actually closes existing loopholes and would effectively reduce administrative burdens on the courts while enabling law enforcement to better protect the public. I did the research and took great care to make sure this petition would be fair for all involved. Obtaining an order of protection is not easy and it is costly. From personal experience, I can tell you it is also scary and needlessly complicated. People who get an order of protection have earned the right to have it upheld. First-time seekers do not fall into a category of abusing the system. That is why this petition emphasizes the first-time qualifier. It is prudent to give the benefit of the doubt to the individual obtaining the order when it is a first-time situation.

    Regarding the comment about attorney fee awards, the comment is without merit. No matter the outcome of a hearing, it is gross negligence and a miscarriage of justice to require the person who obtained the order of protection to pay the attorney fees of the person from whom they sought protection. This happened to me (a first-timer), yet I did nothing wrong, obeyed all orders, and told the truth whereas the other person and opposing counsel committed perjury. I was ordered to pay their attorney fees. It is akin to a rape victim being required to pay their rapist's attorney fees. In first-time matters of order of protection, no one should be made vulnerable and subjected to such trauma and undue punishment. I submitted this petition to save others from the horror I endured. This issue is truly about saving lives and protecting the safety of all involved.

    I appreciate the court's thoughtfulness in reviewing this petition. Please support it. This petition is about safety and making truth matter. It addresses a safety issue for so many innocent people and provides some protection from the wiles of cunning stalkers and abusers. Consider the case of Charles Vallow, Joshua Vallow, and Tylee Ryan. Perhaps if Mr. Vallow's order of protection wasn't cut short, he might be alive and the whereabouts of those children might be known.
    Topic is locked