Family Law


ules 83 and 84.
 RULE  AFFECTS  SUMMARY AND IMPACT

Rule 12

R-13-0054

Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  Rule 12(A) now clarifies that a request for an in camera interview of a minor child who is the subject of a legal decision-making or parenting time dispute must be submitted by written motion. Any such interview must be recorded by a court reporter or electronically. 

A new section C includes within the definition of “court” any conciliation services department or other third-party professional ordered by the assigned judge to conduct a child interview.

Impact:  The court may seal the interview from public access for good cause and if doing so will serve the child’s best interests. The parties may stipulate that they will not be provided with the record of the interview. Otherwise, the court must make this record available to the parties at least 14 days before the hearing in which the child's comments will be considered, unless it adopts a different deadline for good cause.

A new section B cautions an interviewing judge in several respects. The court must ‘take special care to protect the child from embarrassment,’ avoid repetitive or age-inappropriate questions, and honestly disclose the limits on confidentiality. The court must also allow the child to express a point of view, but not require one, and reassure the child that any opinion he or she does offer will not actually decide the case.

A comment in part provides: “Generally, the court should not conduct an in camera interview of a child under this rule unless it finds that the child is of sufficient age and intellectual capacity to reason and form an intelligent preference as to legal decision-making and parenting time. The court is strongly encouraged to utilize other resources, where available and appropriate, to ascertain that preference. In particular, a court should proceed with caution when interviewing a child in any case in which a party has alleged ‘domestic violence’…or ‘abuse’….”


Rules 35(D), 82(B), 83, and 84

R-13-0055

Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  This rule petition stated:

“All of these rules as written are overlapping in their scope, a fact that has led to confusion and a certain degree of redundancy in their application. The resulting procedural confusion can have profound implications, particularly for the pro se litigant, since failure to invoke the proper procedural rule can lead to an inadvertent waiver of the right to appeal.”

Impact: 

1. The Order entered by the Court deletes the entirety of current Rule 35(D), and adds a new sentence that refers parties who are interested in filing a motion for reconsideration or clarification to revised Rule 84. 

2. The Order rewrites Rule 84 so that it now exclusively addresses motions for reconsideration and/or clarification.  An amendment makes clear that motions under revised Rule 84 do not extend the time for filing an appeal from the court ruling at issue. Language of current Rule 84 regarding alterations or amendments to a court ruling is consolidated with revised Rule 83 (see the next paragraph.)

3. The Order merges current Rule 84 into Rule 83, which now governs motions to alter or amend a judgment as well as motions for new trial.  The intent is that motions filed under revised Rule 83 will extend the time for filing an appeal, which is consistent with current practices under Rules 83 and 84 in their present form.

4. The Order also revises Rule 82(B) (amendments to findings of the court) so that it complies with the revisions made to Rules 83 and 84.


Rule 47

R-13-0056

Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  The amendments conform this rule to statutory amendments, including the requirement of holding an evidentiary hearing within 60 days after the filing of a pre-decree motion for temporary orders in a legal decision-making or parenting time action.

 Impact:  These amendments align the rule with SB 1073, (Chapter 31, Laws 2013).  The rule (and the legislation) provide three exemptions to the 60-day time requirement:

1. The filing party waives the requirement for a hearing to be conducted within 60 days after the party files the motion.

2. Temporary orders are established through a separate conference or hearing within 60 days after the party files the motion.

3. Extraordinary circumstances exist and the court is not able to schedule the hearing. If the court is not able to schedule the hearing within 60 days after the motion is filed, it must make a written finding on the record as to the cause of the delay.

When a party seeks a temporary order regarding other matters, including matters of child support and spousal maintenance, at the time of the pre-decree request for temporary orders regarding legal decision-making or parenting time, an evidentiary hearing on those other matters may be held in conjunction with the legal decision-making and parenting time evidentiary hearing. The court also may set any other conference or hearing it deems appropriate.


Rule 67

R-13-0057

Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  The amendments correct erroneous references to subsections of the rule.

Impact:

   Information only.



Rule 74

R-13-0058


Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  These amendments add "choice of schools" to the list of issues on which a parenting coordinator may make recommendations to the court.

Impact:  Information only.


Rule 97

R-13-0059

Superior

Judges
Clerks
Administrators

Summary:  These amendments to interrogatories in Form 7 deal with employment, legal decision-making, and spousal affidavits and inventories.

Impact:  Information only.