Rule Changes: Rule 6, Change of Judge as a Matter of Right

January 28, 2019

Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for Family Law Cases (notice of change of judge) has changed pretty dramatically.   Previously, the change of judge procedure was identical to that in the Rules of Civil Procedure. The family law rule simply said “See Rule 42, Rules of Civil Procedure”.  This is no longer the case. […]

Read the full article →

Legal Decision Making and Court’s Authority to Make School Choice is AGAIN Clarified: Nicaise v. Sundaram

January 25, 2019

[originally posted MARCH 2, 2018, updated January 21, 2019]        Nicaise v. Sundaram, Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-18-0089-PR Last March (2018) the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its decision in Nicaise, defining that a trial court’s authority to direct parental decisions was very limited.   That holding remains in effect as good law in Arizona.  But on […]

Read the full article →

What Do I Need to Know About the 2019 Family Law Rules Changes? (Part 1 of several)

January 14, 2019

The Rules changed on 1/1/2019, so how extensive were the changes?   There are a number of substantive changes to cover, and this article in the  Arizona Attorney in January covered some of those.  There was extensive restyling, meaning that the language and wording in many rules was changed and (hopefully) simplified.   Some renumbering occurred, mostly […]

Read the full article →

2018 Cases Wrapped Up: Amadore and Davis – and the new Rules

January 7, 2019

Amadore v. Lifgren.   (2018)  While this case involved the modification of spousal maintenance and child support retroactive to the date of filing for modification, and discussed how to handle the overpayments made as the result of the retroactive reduction in those amounts, I found the most interesting holding in this case to be that the […]

Read the full article →

New Case Limits Application of Hays v. Gama: Johnson v. Provoyeur

September 4, 2018

A 2003 case, Hays v. Gama has been cited repeatedly, and often incorrectly, for the proposition that a trial court cannot exclude evidence that would tend to add information about a child’s best interests, no matter how late that evidence is produced or whether it violates disclosure requirements.   That misuse of the Hays findings is […]

Read the full article →

Help Your Client Be More Comfortable With Mediation

August 13, 2018

The purpose of this post is to give attorneys a template that can be provided to their clients prior to mediation, to make the client more comfortable during mediation and let them know what to expect.    The attorney will need to modify this form to reflect the actual type of mediation and mediator you’re […]

Read the full article →

Equal Parenting Time Gets Another Boost from COA: Barron v. Barron

July 31, 2018

As of today, July 31, 2018, we have new pronouncements from the Arizona Court of Appeals about equal parenting time.   (Hint:  They’re in favor of it.)    The findings don’t bode well for those parents who oppose equal time sharing arrangements (in cases where there are no provable parenting deficits) on the basis that “the children […]

Read the full article →

Devices in Divorce: The Apps are Traps

July 6, 2018

Right now, if my partner threw me out of the house, I could make him crazy   I could turn on the speakers in three rooms of the house, delete everything he wants to record on TV, delete all his upcoming travel information, charge movies and special events to his account, turn the house alarm off […]

Read the full article →

Paul E Part II: Quasi-Judicial Immunity for Court-Appointed Professionals

July 2, 2018

In a recent post, I discussed the Court of Appeals’ April decision in Paul E. v. Courtney F. and how it affects what a trial court can do in making decisions for children when the parents can’t.  A third aspect of that case involved the court’s ability to grant quasi-judicial immunity to a court-appointed therapist […]

Read the full article →

Court’s Authority to Direct a Parent’s Decision-Making is Limited: Paul E. V. Courtney F.

April 11, 2018

Paul E. v. Courtney F., was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Div. I, on April 3, 2018. This important Division 1 Court of Appeals case defines provisions of legal decision-making, both joint and sole, and severely restricts the trial court’s ability to make decisions for a child’s best interests. The three primary takeaway […]

Read the full article →