Continuing on the topic of the court’s authority when it comes to therapy, this post discusses the court’s overall authority to get involved with it: Can the court order a parent into therapy? Can a parenting coordinator? Can the court order a child into therapy over the objections of one or both parents? Can the court order the whole family into therapy? What, if any, are the limits?
The court’s authority over other mental health services for the parties remains Rule 95, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, which states in part:
(a) Generally. The court in a family law case may consider the services set forth in this rule, if available. The court must determine on the record whether the parties have the ability to pay for services as well as allocate the costs of those services.
(b) Behavioral or Mental Health Services. Except as provided in Rule 72 or Rule 74, the court may order parties to engage in behavioral or mental health services, including counseling and therapeutic interventions.
(Writer’s Note: The exceptions in this subsection caution that a Rule 72 Family Law Master and a Rule 74 Parenting Coordinator cannot directly order parties to engage in behavioral or mental health services, including counseling and therapeutic interventions. A parenting coordinator can recommend those services, but those orders must come from the court. In the case of a Rule 72 Family Law Master, that role is prohibited from making any “decisions or recommendations concerning legal decision-making or parenting time”, which presumably would prohibit any recommendations for counseling. Court orders for a parent’s or child’s counseling are often made to advise the court in rendering decisions about children.
The term “recommending” in Rule 74f(2)(E) leaves the final decision about a parent or child’s counseling to the Court, so if a parenting coordinator recommends counseling services, a court order must be entered following the parenting coordinator’s report and recommendation on the counseling issue.
The Paul E. v. Courtney F. decision (2018) initially (in 2018) clouded the waters on the court’s authority about obtaining counseling for a child. In April 2019, the Supreme Court of Arizona clarified that issue in Paul E. II and resolved that a trial court may be a tie-breaker and order therapy for a child (or may make other child-related decisions) if the parents with joint legal decision-making cannot agree, and assuming one of the two parents wants the child to have therapy. But when one parent is awarded sole legal decision-making, the court’s ability to enter specific therapy provisions is greatly curtailed by ARS 25-410A. Paul E. II also clarified that Rule 95 is NOT authority for the trial court to appoint specific therapy providers for a child. “ARFLP 95(A) is a procedural rule and cannot enlarge the court’s authority beyond that granted by statute.””
