Susan Pickard [email protected] -602.452.3252
on behalf of
Family Court Improvement Committee
Judge Paul McMurdie, Chair

The Family Court Improvement Committee met on March 2, 2023. A motion to support the adoption of the amendments proposed to Rules 44.1, 45(c), 78(g), and 91.3 regarding "School Orders" passed unanimously.

AMENDED COMMENT

Susan Pickard [email protected] -602.452.3252
on behalf of
Family Court Improvement Committee
Judge Paul McMurdie, Chair

The Family Court Improvement Committee met on March 2, 2023. A motion to support the adoption of the amendments proposed to Rules 44.1, 45(c), 78(g), and 91.3 regarding "School Orders" passed. A dissenting member noted that this should not be a mandatory set of forms as one size does not fit all court processes.

Lynne C. Adams, plus additional listed commenting lawyers,
Osborn Maledon, PA,
2929 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000, Phoenix, AZ 85012,
602-640-9348,
[email protected],
Bar No. 011367

Marie Piccarreta
(520) 881-2021
[email protected]

As a private attorney-mediator with a long standing mediation practice, I have a somewhat limited opportunity to see the entirety of the spectrum; however, for the clients who are utilizing my services, much of this language is already incorporated into the mediated parenting plan, based on the needs of the individual parents. Furthermore, I have concerns that having this one size fits all order in the file of every child of divorced parents (or never married) at school could potentially have the unintended consequence of inaccurately identify a child as coming from a high conflict household. Perhaps this is better suited to situations where there is already an issue warranting such an order?

Comment of the State Bar of Arizona
Lisa M. Panahi
Bar No. 023421
General Counsel
State Bar of Arizona
4201 N. 24th St., Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-340-7236
[email protected]

My concern about the sole legal decision-making school order is too broad and does not address when a parent, who does not have legal decision-making, has supervised or restricted parenting time, or where there is a protective order in place. The language of paragraph 5 at the end states "Each parent may pick up the minor child(ren) from school and each may authorize other individuals to pick up the minor child(ren), unless there are limitations under the terms of the current Parenting Plan or other court order." This language requires that the school also reference the Parenting Plan and other court orders to interpret whether a parent can pick up a child. I would suggest modifying the form to be able to add the language of the Parenting Plan or other court order, so that the school will only need to refer to the school order, rather than multiple orders.

Arlene Rheinfelder, AZCLDP 81216
Prescott Tax & Paralegal LLC
141 S. McCormick St., Suite 206
Prescott, AZ 86303
(928) 778-3113

My comments on R-23-0007 are as follows:

Children under school-age: The order indicates it applies to “schools, pre-schools, and institutional child-care providers,” but does not include exclusionary language for infants or children under school-age. Is there an exemption for children under school-age?

Presumptive versus Final decision-making authority: There are some counties that do not utilize the “presumptive” option for legal decision-making. Having this as an option included in the Joint Order creates confusion and unnecessary debate among everyone, including parents, mediators, attorneys, and judges.

Inconsistency between counties: there are some counties that have created Education Orders with language varying greatly from the original language. This again, creates confusion for everyone, especially when attorneys from one county, represent a client in a different county. This inconsistency is bound to eventually affect schools as well, as they have more and more of these forms submitted to them.

Access to records: ARS §25-403.06 states that both parents are entitled to have equal access to records. On the Education Order, under Section 8, Access to School Records and Parent Portal, providing parents the option of an “or” to not permit access to records, opens the door for a parent to attempt to restrict the other from doing so, contradicting Arizona statutes.

We understand the desire for schools to want more information to help them deal with separated parents in conflict. The idea is a good one, but the implementation of this order as it currently stands, does not help schools or parents, and creates unnecessary controversy for everyone involved.

Perhaps the items which cause the most contention for schools, can be added (concisely) to parenting plans instead, as an additional section concerning Education, to address these concerns?

Christy Kalbach, ADR Manager
928-777-3066
[email protected]