520.730.5650
P. Cummins
14715 S. Camino Tierra Del Rio
Sahuarita, AZ 85629
[email protected] 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.