Search 

Azcourts.gov

Arizona Judicial Branch



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 SACrtDocs@courts.az.gov.


News:  We have corrected an error that prevented users from accessing some current criminal rules via Westlaw.
Message from the Chief Justice


Current Arizona Rules on Westlaw

Amendments from Recent Rule Agendas

Rule Amendments (2006 to present) 

Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence

 

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 05 Jul 2018 03:59 PM by  mmeltzer
R-17-0054 Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure
 10 Replies
Sort:
Topic is locked
Author Messages
Mark Armstrong
New Member
Posts:5 New Member

--
30 Nov 2017 11:44 AM
    Justice Rebecca Berch (ret.), Chair
    Judge Mark Armstrong (ret.), Vice Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, Petitioner
    1501 W. Washington St.
    Phoenix, AZ 85007
    marmstrong@courts.az.gov
    (602) 452-3387

    Motion to Permit Additional Time for Filing a Rule Petition, with a Request for Expedited Consideration

    FILED November 30, 2017.

    IT IS ORDERED granting the Task Force’s Motion to Permit Additional Time for Filing a Rule Petition, with a Request for Expedited Consideration.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Task Force file a rule petition in furtherance of Administrative Order No. 2016-131 not later than March 31, 2018, after which the petition shall be opened for comment pursuant to Rule 28(D), Rules of the Supreme Court, until June 1, 2018.

    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Task Force file its reply not later than July 6, 2018.

    ORDERED: Petition to Amend the Rules of Family Law Procedure and Rule 9, Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure = ADOPTED as modified, effective January 1, 2019.
    Attachments
    Patricia
    New Member
    Posts:7 New Member

    --
    25 Jan 2018 10:07 AM
    PCummins
    14715S.Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, AZ 85629
    520-730-5650

    Good Morning,

    I read in your filing for additional time:

    "There are at approximately 100 Family Law Rules. Some of the rules raise intricate issues that necessitated deliberations by workgroups and Task Force members at multiple meetings. In addition to restyling these rules, members have recommended a variety of organizational and SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. (?)

    Despite more than 60 meetings ...Where and when were the 60 open meetings posted and held?

    Where and when will the additional meetings be posted for the public to attend, and as stated in the pleading for additional time, before submitting?

    [Additional time also would permit the Task Force to obtain input from interested stakeholders, as the administrative order directs, before filing a rule petition]

    Please post where interested stakeholders are to submit input, and where and when the meetings are going to be held for all the workgroups as it appears they have met with out public access.

    Thank you!!
    Attachments
    Patricia
    New Member
    Posts:7 New Member

    --
    30 Jan 2018 01:35 PM
    PCummins
    14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, AZ 85629
    520-730-5650



    Petitioner would like to reply to the Task Force concerning their motion and request as follows:

    The Task Force states:
    "There are at approximately 100 Family Law Rules. Some of the rules raise intricate issues that necessitated deliberations by workgroups and Task Force members at multiple meetings. In addition to restyling these rules, members have recommended a variety of organizational and [substantive changes].

    “Despite more than [60 meetings] and earnest efforts to complete a petition to restyle the Family Law Rules, the Task Force is unable to meet the January 10, 2018, filing date set by A.O. 2016-131.”

    “[Additional time also would permit the Task Force to obtain input from interested stakeholders, as the administrative order directs, before filing a rule petition]”

    Request
    There were 12 meetings scheduled and posted, but 60 occurred.

    1. Please provide dates, times and locations of the additional meetings, and where the information is posted for the interested stakeholders/public to be able to attend, as it appears they have met without public access, 48 times.

    2. Please provide an email to submit stakeholder’s input electronically as an alternative to attending in person due to work or other responsibilities.

    RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 30th day of January, 2018.

    /s/ Patricia Cummins
    __________________________
    Patricia Cummins
    Attachments
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:15 New Member

    --
    22 Mar 2018 03:29 PM
    Hon. Rebecca White Berch (ret.), Chair, and Hon. Mark Armstrong (ret.), Co-Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure
    1501 West Washington Street, Suite 410, Phoenix AZ 85007
    602.452.3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    This petition proposes stylistic and substantive amendments to the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.
    Attachments
    FAIRWorkgroups
    New Member
    Posts:12 New Member

    --
    18 May 2018 04:53 PM
    Hon. Valerie Wyant, President
    Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks
    200 N San Francisco St
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001
    928-679-7615

    The Arizona Association of Superior Court Clerks submit the attached comments and proposed amendments to the petition.
    Attachments
    State Bar of Arizona
    New Member
    Posts:50 New Member

    --
    21 May 2018 03:25 PM
    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
    Patricia.seguin@staff.azbar.org

    The State Bar of Arizona submits the attached comment to this petition.
    Attachments
    Division of Child Support Services
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    31 May 2018 08:30 AM
    Molly McCarthy, Deputy Assistant Director, IV-D Director
    Division of Child Support Services
    P.O. Box 40458
    Phoenix, AZ 85067-0458
    602-542-4953
    https://des/az/gov/


    Please see the attached comment from the Arizona Department of Economic Security/Division of Child Support Services on behalf of the IV-D Program.https://www.azcourts.gov/DesktopModules/ActiveForums/themes/_default/images/save32.png
    Attachments
    Greg Sakall
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 Jun 2018 12:39 PM
    Hon. Greg Sakall
    Pima County Superior Court
    110 W. Congress St.
    Tucson, AZ 85701
    (520) 724-8301

    Please find attached a Comment containing a collection of comments of members of the Family Law Bench of the Superior Court of Arizona, Pima County to the pending petition.
    Attachments
    Ann Haralambie
    New Member
    Posts:1 New Member

    --
    01 Jun 2018 12:58 PM
    I don't like the requirement in proposed Rule 47 for mandatory RMCs. I realize that this is the practice in Maricopa County, but Pins County does not require it, and it would impose multiple burdens on clients. Not including the additional attorneys fees for attending this 15 minute conference, many of our clients can't afford to take off time for work, arrange child care, and get themselves downtown for the hearing. This is really inconsiderate to our clients and to pro series litigants. In Pima County we have generally not been using RMCs in most cases to assist in settling cases or simplifying issues. If you must keep this in, please provide that it can be waived by local rule, since I am quite confident that the vast majority of Pima County family law practitioners oppose this.
    Patricia
    New Member
    Posts:7 New Member

    --
    01 Jul 2018 07:24 AM
    520.730.5650
    P. Cummins
    14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
    Sahuarita, AZ 85629
    patriciapeaches@aol.com

    Upon further inspection of the latest Rule submitted on the forum by the task force, R-17-0054, there is a necessity to further incorporate Rule 63 in being abrogated or redone to be consistent with proper use of third party fee based appointments so as to not infringe upon statutory guidelines of most importantly : A.R.S. § 1-601 stating in part that the “liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right” and that strict scrutiny applies when a parent’s rights are infringed upon by the government.

    Please regard the following conflict with Rule 63 as it is the same as Rule 95, and fee based third party appointments over objection. Who pays for this and what are the parameters for ordering this type of testing? Is it for more litigation or for interpersonal violence and control perpetrated by a bonus for an attorney to continue to harass using the courts to do so?
    A recent judge stated testing is necessary as the parties are in high conflict since 2008. See article attached, please do not be whoozled, or let the tail wag the dog.
    "While continuingour efforts to reduce parent conflict and to improve the
    coparenting relationship, we should be equally—or perhaps even
    more—invested in helping both parents strengthen their relationships
    with their children and improve their parenting skills.
    Given these findings, we can fine tune our “woozle alert”
    systems so we are less likely to be misled by data that have been
    cherry-picked, misrepresented, exaggerated, or only partially reported
    to support only one position on conflict, coparenting, and
    custody plans. With a more finely tuned alert system, we can better
    serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no
    longer living together."

    SIMILAR CONFLICTS WITH RULE 63- See A.R.S. § 1-601 stating in part that the “liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right” and that strict scrutiny applies when a parent’s rights are infringed upon by the government.

    Individuals faced with infringement on their fundamental constitutional right to parent should face no more financial burden.

    Judge Swann has provided in similar comments: “First, the standard -- whether a parent “can afford” – is too vague and subjective to permit consistent application or meaningful review. Second, the information that the court usually has available to it, while sufficient to assess a parent’s basic financial condition, is usually insufficiently detailed to determine what the parent can truly “afford..” Third, we question whether the court has (or even should have) the power to determine what parents will spend based on its subjective impression of what they can afford. It would be unthinkable to order a pro per litigant to hire a certain lawyer the court thinks she can afford. On what basis, then, can the court order a litigant to hire a certain lawyer, psychologist or other parenting coordinator ?”
    A parent who is functional, obtains “outstanding” ratings at work, is a parent who has provided for their children, is involved in school and sports with the child, has a happy child, shares legal joint custody, and pursuant to State Law has the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care, and mental health of their children, parents request they restrict the infringement of this right by allowing a parent to use this Rule 63 as another form of harassment and coercion.

    This Rule is one which can be used to harass, and increase costs, how does the judge decide if any of this is necessary, to further harass a pro se litigant, or what is the parameter of what in “controversy” their own curiosity? which the same topics of Rule 95 (a), are again are not included in Rule 63, why would this be ordered only upon request of a party? Either party can request this?
    This is invasive, this is harassing, this is for annoyance and embarrassment, what are the parameters for this rule to be used?
    Who pays for this, who selects and pays the evaluator?
    Is insurance used for this test?
    Does the Court pay for the Evaluator?
    What is the cap of the cost of this?
    Why is it not recorded? So many issues with the Evaluators and you do not want it to be recorded? This Rule 63 must have set parameters for its use and a maximum dollar of Cost-I agree with Ann haralambie, this would impose multiple burdens on parties, such as additional attorney fees, time off work, arrange child care, and travel expenses and cost of an intrusive test that one party can request of the other for no reason.
    This Rule should be struck, and only used in criminal courts.

    who allows violation of HIPPA, this rule plays into Domestic Violence.
    1. Conner (2011) concludes in a lengthy review of 82 D. G. Saunders
    the literature: ‘‘Communication is made difficult, if not impossible, when one
    parent harasses, abuses, and intimidates the other parent. Not only are
    batterers poor decision makers, they also tend to use the power of joint
    parenting to exert control over the other parent’’ (p. 260). Research supports
    Conner’s conclusion that many abusers will use a joint legal custody arrangement
    to continue harassment and manipulation through legal channels
    (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Hayes, 2012; Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003;
    Zorza, 2010).

    2. ** The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
    Judges’ guidebook cautions:

    In contested custody cases, children may indeed express fear of, be
    concerned about, have distaste for, or be angry at one of their parents.
    Unfortunately, an all too common practice in such cases is for evaluators
    to diagnose children who exhibit a very strong bond and alignment with
    one parent and, simultaneously, a strong rejection of the other parent, as
    suffering from ‘‘parental alienation syndrome’’ or ‘‘PAS.’’ Under relevant
    evidentiary standards, the court should not accept this testimony. The
    theory positing the existence of ‘‘PAS’’ has been discredited by the scientific
    community. If the history of violence is ignored as the context for
    the abused parent’s behavior in a custody evaluation, she or he may
    appear antagonistic, unhelpful, or mentally unstable. Evaluators may then
    wrongly determine that the parent is not fostering a positive relationship
    with the abusive parent and inappropriately suggest giving the abusive
    parent custody or unsupervised visitation in spite of the history of violence;
    this is especially true if the evaluator minimizes the impact on children of
    violence against a parent or pathologizes the abused parent’s responses to
    the violence. (Dalton et al., 2006, pp. 24–25)
    Even without explicit reference to PAS or alienation, evaluators may use
    an implicit alienation framework when assessing motives and behavior
    (Pranzo, 2013).

    3. Re-Examining The Research on Parental Conflict, Coparenting and Custody Arrangements;
    Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2017 American Psychological Association
    2017, Vol. 23, No. 2, 211–231 1076-8971/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000109
    211
    Six salient messages, however, do emerge from these studies.
    First, the level of conflict and the quality of the coparenting
    relationship are often not as closely correlated with children’s
    well-being as the quality of the parent– child relationship. Second,
    the connection between conflict and children’s well-being is me-
    PARENTAL CONFLICT AND CHILD CUSTODY 227
    diated by the quality of the children’s relationships with their
    parents. Third, parents’ settling their custody disputes in court or
    through protracted legal negotiations has not been linked to worse
    outcomes for children. Fourth, JPC is associated with better outcomes
    for children than SPC even when their parents do not
    initially both agree to the parenting plan and even when the
    conflict at the time of separation or in subsequent years is not low.
    Fifth, most JPC parents do not have substantially less conflict or
    more collaborative coparenting relationships than SPC parents.
    And sixth, limiting the time that children spend with one of their
    parents through SPC is not correlated with better outcomes for
    children, even when there is considerable conflict and a poor
    coparenting relationship.
    In sum, the best research currently available suggests that the
    quality of the parent– child relationship is more closely linked than
    parental conflict or the quality of the coparenting relationship to
    children’s outcomes, with the exception of the most extreme forms
    of conflict to which some children are exposed. Conflict, coparenting,
    and the quality of the children’s relationships with each
    parent are all connected to children’s well-being. This is not an
    “either– or” issue that ignores the role that parental conflict or
    coparenting play in children’s lives. Still, the data strongly support
    the idea that the quality of the parent– child relationship is the best
    predictor of future outcomes for the children. In other words, the
    role of conflict has too often been exaggerated and should not be
    the determining factor in child custody decisions or in regard to
    JPC arrangements except in those situations where the children
    need protection from an abusive or negligent parent. While continuing
    our efforts to reduce parent conflict and to improve the
    coparenting relationship, we should be equally—or perhaps even
    more—invested in helping both parents strengthen their relationships
    with their children and improve their parenting skills.
    Given these findings, we can fine tune our “woozle alert”
    systems so we are less likely to be misled by data that have been
    cherry-picked, misrepresented, exaggerated, or only partially reported
    to support only one position on conflict, coparenting, and
    custody plans. With a more finely tuned alert system, we can better
    serve the interests of the millions of children whose parents are no
    longer living together.
    mmeltzer
    New Member
    Posts:15 New Member

    --
    05 Jul 2018 03:59 PM
    Hon. Rebecca White Berch (ret.), Chair, and Hon. Mark W. Armstrong (ret.), Co-Chair
    Task Force on the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure
    1501 West Washington Street, Suite 410, Phoenix AZ 85007
    602.452.3242
    mmeltzer@courts.az.gov

    Petitioner files the attached Reply and Appendix as provided by the Court's scheduling order.
    Attachments
    Topic is locked


    <