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].



Message from the Chief Justice

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. 

BEFORE POSTING, PLEASE READ: 

Contact Information

Please include all of 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 14 May 2020 12:56 PM by  Judge Bruce R. Cohen
R-19-0047 Rule 35, Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure
 2 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
JudgeGeraldWilliams
New Member
Posts:12 New Member

--
13 Dec 2019 02:12 PM
    Justice of the Peace Gerald A. Williams
    Arizona Bar No. 018947
    North Valley Justice Court
    14264 West Tierra Buena Lane
    Surprise, AZ 85301
    (602) 372-2000
    [email protected]

    Judge Bruce R. Cohen
    Family Department Presiding Judge
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    125 West Washington, Suite 101
    Phoenix, Arizona 85003
    [email protected]

    The Justice of the Peace Bench in Maricopa County and the Presiding Family Court Judge in Maricopa County propose adding Rule 35f to the Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure to address the handling of Injunctions Against Harassment that include children and may affect matters pending existing family court orders or matters.

    Would amend Ariz. Rule of Protective Order Procedure 35 to forbid courts issuing Injunctions Against Harassment orders from including minor children if it would or may impact a family court order or action involving the same children.

    Filed December 13, 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 Rules of Protective Order Procedure 35 = CONTINUED until the December 2020 Rules Agenda. This matter will be referred to the Family Court Improvement Committee, a standing committee of the Arizona Judicial Council established by Administrative Order 2019-115.

    Attachments
    Kay Radwanski
    New Member
    Posts:18 New Member

    --
    01 May 2020 08:27 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 members had several concerns about this proposal. First, the proposed rule includes no emergency provision for a limited jurisdiction court to issue an Injunction Against Harassment (IAH) when the safety of a child is at issue. Not all limited jurisdiction courts are co-located with or located near superior court buildings. For some plaintiffs, the time of the day or the distance from the superior court may be impediments to filing a petition that involves a child’s safety. Next, while a parent can file for temporary emergency orders in family court, a parent will not necessarily be aware of that option and may waste valuable time at a limited jurisdiction court, only to be sent to a superior court that may be far away. Finally, members had procedural questions, asking how the superior court can take jurisdiction over parties to a limited jurisdiction court’s IAH when the superior court does not otherwise have jurisdiction over the parties to the IAH. There is also a presumption that the limited jurisdiction court will know that there is a parenting time order between one of the parties to the IAH and another person who is not part of the IAH case.
    Judge Bruce R. Cohen
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    14 May 2020 12:56 PM
    Judge Bruce R. Cohen
    Family Department Presiding Judge
    Maricopa County Superior Court
    125 West Washington, Suite 101
    Phoenix, Arizona 85003
    [email protected]

    Attached is my reply to the May 1, 2020 comment from CIDVC
    Attachments
    Topic is locked

    Forums Rule Change Petitions under Consideration Rules of Protective Order