Arizona Family Law Rules Update 2010
1
“For Better or For Worse”
State Bar of Arizona
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
January 28, 2010
Rules Update
Arizona Rules of
Family Law Procedure,
Protective Order Procedure, and
Evidence
By Hon. Mark W. Armstrong
Arizona Family Law Rules Handbook
(West 2009)
3
State Bar of Arizona
Family Law Practice and Procedure
Committee
Arizona Court Rules Forum
http://www.dnnsupremecourt.state.az
.us/AZSupremeCourtMain/AZCourtRul
esMain/CourtRulesForumMain/tabid/
89/Default.aspx
2010 ARFLP Amendments
In R-08-0031, the Supreme Court
adopted amendments to Rules 74, 76, 79
and 97, Forms 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and a new
Form 16, effective January 1, 2010.
These changes were proposed by the
State Bar of Arizona.
Amendment of Rule 74. Parenting
Coordinator
•
Changes the language of paragraph J of
the rule to allow parties to object or
request a hearing “not later than 10
days after the date of filing of the
court’s order.”
•
Adds sentence to comment to clarify
that the amendment does not preclude
a party from filing an objection to a
recommendation before the court acts.
Amendment of Rule 76. Pretrial
Procedures
Adds subdivision 6 to paragraph C
stating that “[t]he parties may comply
with this paragraph by using the form
of pretrial statement provided in [new]
Form 16.”
Amendment of Rule 79. Summary
Judgment
Changes the response and reply times
to 30 and 15 days, respectively, to be
consistent with recent changes made to
the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Amendment of Rule 97. Family Law
Forms
•
Amends Forms 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 to
comply with HB 2505, passed by the
legislature in 2008, concerning medical
insurance for children.
•
Also adds new Form 16. Pretrial
Statement
Proposed 2011 ARFLP
Amendments
R-09-0042, filed by the State Bar of
Arizona, proposes changes to Rules
47, 67, 69, 74, 78 and a new Rule 5.1.
The State Bar proposes an effective
date of January 1, 2011.
Proposed New Rule 5.1
Addresses simultaneous dependency and
custody proceedings.
According to the petition, “[t]hese types of
cases involve similar fact patterns and
repetitive evidence. The rule provides for the
possibility of consolidation of dependency and
custody proceedings at the discretion of the
juvenile division.”
Proposed New Rule 5.1
“Consolidation of these cases is left to the
discretion of the juvenile division. Prior to
the submission of this rule, no guidance
existed for the situation of simultaneous
custody and dependency actions. This rule
provides guidance and allows the court to
more expeditiously handle these types of
cases.”
Proposed Amendment of Rule 47.
Temporary Orders
Proposes to add reference to A.R.S. § 25-
415 (Custody by nonparent) in
paragraph A
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67.
Mediation, Arbitration, etc.
Adds language to subdivision (B)(1)(a)
requiring mediated agreements to comply
with Rule 69 and provides that the parties
shall acknowledge that: a) the settlement
was voluntary and without undue influence
after full disclosure of all relevant facts and
information, and b) the agreement is
intended to be binding and is fair and
equitable.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67.
Mediation, Arbitration, etc.
Where children are the subject of
an agreement the proposal
requires the parties to confirm
that the agreement is in the best
interests of the minor children.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67.
Mediation, Arbitration, etc.
Adds new subdivision B(1)(b), which sets
forth the requirements for appointment of
active judges pro tempore to serve as
private mediators. Authorizes court to
appoint a judge pro tem as mediator “upon
request of the parties.” The addition
requires the judge pro tempore to submit
an affidavit stating that the judge pro
tempore is in good standing.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67.
Mediation, Arbitration, etc.
The rule further provides that the order
appointing the judge pro tempore as
mediator may authorize the approval of
binding agreements, and authorize the judge
pro tempore to sign any decree conforming
to the agreements of the parties. Pursuant
to this addition, judges pro tempore may be
paid for their mediation services, but must
not seek remuneration for the approval of
agreements or the execution of decrees.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69.
Binding Agreements
Proposes that an agreement is valid and
binding if
1.
the agreement is in writing, or
2.
the terms of the agreement are set
forth on the record before a judge,
commissioner, judge pro tempore, court
reporter, or other person authorized by
local rule or Administrative Order to accept
such agreements, or
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69.
Binding Agreements
3.
the terms of the agreement are
set forth on any audio recording
device before a mediator or
settlement conference officer
appointed by the court pursuant to
Rule 67.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69.
Binding Agreements
Also proposes to add a new
paragraph B providing
presumption that agreements
under rule are valid and binding
and . . . .
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69.
Binding Agreements
. . . .
establishing that the burden of
proof in challenging an otherwise
valid and binding agreement lies with
the party challenging the agreement.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 74.
Parenting Coordinator
Proposes to amend paragraph E by adding
the following sentence:
Counsel are not permitted to attend
parenting coordinator meetings unless
agreed to by the parties and the
parenting coordinator, or ordered by
Court.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 78.
Judgments; Costs; Attorneys’ Fees
Proposes to add new paragraph E and
corresponding comment to clarify that
the procedure governing offers of
judgment in civil cases under Civil Rule
68 do
not
apply in family law
proceedings.
2010 Amendments to Arizona
Rules of Evidence
Rule 408 (R-08-0035)—Evidence of
Compromise and Offers to Compromise
New Rule 502 (R-09-0004)—Modeled after Fed.
R. Evid. 502— designed to resolve disputes
concerning inadvertant and voluntary
disclosures.
Both effective January 1, 2010
Domestic Violence Rules
The Arizona Rules of Protective
Order Procedure (ARPOP) were
adopted by the Supreme Court
and became effective
January 1, 2008.
2009 DV Legislation and Rule Change
SB 1088 –
Amends § 13-3601(A)
Effective Sept. 30, 2009
2009 DV Legislation and Rule Change
Adds
“romantic
or sexual
relationship”
2009 DV Legislation and Rule Change
Four Factors MAY Be Considered
Type of
relationship
Length of the
relationship
Four Factors MAY Be Considered
Frequency of the
interaction
between the
victim and the
defendant
Four Factors MAY Be Considered
If the relationship has terminated,
the length of time since the
termination
Four Factors MAY Be Considered
Rules Changed to Reflect Change
•
The Supreme Court has amended ARPOP
6(C)(3)(b)(6) on an emergency basis to add
this relationship to the OP rule, effective
September 30, 2009.
See
R-09-0026.
New Petition
[ ] Romantic or sexual relationship
(current or previous)
Dating but not a romantic or sexual
relationship
New Petition
Proposed 2011 ARPOP
Amendments
•
R-10-0017 proposes an amendment of Rule
4(B)(5)(b) that would mandate transfer of
ex
parte
limited jurisdiction court protective
orders to superior court when the protected
party is the child of the defendant or a person
who is subject to a custody, parenting time or
visitation order.
•
Proposes an effective date of January 1, 2011.
The State Bar of Arizona introduced amendments to the rules of family law procedure, protective order procedure, and evidence in 2010. Changes were made to Rules 74, 76, 79, and 97, along with various forms, to enhance procedures in family law cases. These amendments aimed to streamline processes, clarify timelines for responses, and ensure compliance with legislative updates, benefiting both legal practitioners and individuals involved in family law matters.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
For Better or For Worse State Bar of Arizona American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers January 28, 2010 Rules Update Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, Protective Order Procedure, and Evidence By Hon. Mark W. Armstrong 1
Arizona Family Law Rules Handbook (West 2009)
State Bar of Arizona Family Law Practice and Procedure Committee 3
Arizona Court Rules Forum http://www.dnnsupremecourt.state.az .us/AZSupremeCourtMain/AZCourtRul esMain/CourtRulesForumMain/tabid/ 89/Default.aspx
2010 ARFLP Amendments In R-08-0031, the Supreme Court adopted amendments to Rules 74, 76, 79 and 97, Forms 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and a new Form 16, effective January 1, 2010. These changes were proposed by the State Bar of Arizona.
Amendment of Rule 74. Parenting Coordinator Changes the language of paragraph J of the rule to allow parties to object or request a hearing not later than 10 days after the date of filing of the court s order. Adds sentence to comment to clarify that the amendment does not preclude a party from filing an objection to a recommendation before the court acts.
Amendment of Rule 76. Pretrial Procedures Adds subdivision 6 to paragraph C stating that [t]he parties may comply with this paragraph by using the form of pretrial statement provided in [new] Form 16.
Amendment of Rule 79. Summary Judgment Changes the response and reply times to 30 and 15 days, respectively, to be consistent with recent changes made to the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Amendment of Rule 97. Family Law Forms Amends Forms 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 to comply with HB 2505, passed by the legislature in 2008, concerning medical insurance for children. Also adds new Form 16. Pretrial Statement
Proposed 2011 ARFLP Amendments R-09-0042, filed by the State Bar of Arizona, proposes changes to Rules 47, 67, 69, 74, 78 and a new Rule 5.1. The State Bar proposes an effective date of January 1, 2011.
Proposed New Rule 5.1 Addresses simultaneous dependency and custody proceedings. According to the petition, [t]hese types of cases involve similar fact patterns and repetitive evidence. The rule provides for the possibility of consolidation of dependency and custody proceedings at the discretion of the juvenile division.
Proposed New Rule 5.1 Consolidation of these cases is left to the discretion of the juvenile division. Prior to the submission of this rule, no guidance existed for the situation of simultaneous custody and dependency actions. This rule provides guidance and allows the court to more expeditiously handle these types of cases.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 47. Temporary Orders Proposes to add reference to A.R.S. 25- 415 (Custody by nonparent) in paragraph A
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67. Mediation, Arbitration, etc. Adds language to subdivision (B)(1)(a) requiring mediated agreements to comply with Rule 69 and provides that the parties shall acknowledge that: a) the settlement was voluntary and without undue influence after full disclosure of all relevant facts and information, and b) the agreement is intended to be binding and is fair and equitable.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67. Mediation, Arbitration, etc. Where children are the subject of an agreement the proposal requires the parties to confirm that the agreement is in the best interests of the minor children.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67. Mediation, Arbitration, etc. Adds new subdivision B(1)(b), which sets forth the requirements for appointment of active judges pro tempore to serve as private mediators. Authorizes court to appoint a judge pro tem as mediator upon request of the parties. The addition requires the judge pro tempore to submit an affidavit stating that the judge pro tempore is in good standing.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 67. Mediation, Arbitration, etc. The rule further provides that the order appointing the judge pro tempore as mediator may authorize the approval of binding agreements, and authorize the judge pro tempore to sign any decree conforming to the agreements of the parties. Pursuant to this addition, judges pro tempore may be paid for their mediation services, but must not seek remuneration for the approval of agreements or the execution of decrees.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69. Binding Agreements Proposes that an agreement is valid and binding if 1. the agreement is in writing, or 2. the terms of the agreement are set forth on the record before a judge, commissioner, judge pro tempore, court reporter, or other person authorized by local rule or Administrative Order to accept such agreements, or
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69. Binding Agreements 3. the terms of the agreement are set forth on any audio recording device before a mediator or settlement conference officer appointed by the court pursuant to Rule 67.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69. Binding Agreements Also proposes to add a new paragraph B providing presumption that agreements under rule are valid and binding and . . . .
Proposed Amendment of Rule 69. Binding Agreements . . . . establishing that the burden of proof in challenging an otherwise valid and binding agreement lies with the party challenging the agreement.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 74. Parenting Coordinator Proposes to amend paragraph E by adding the following sentence: Counsel are not permitted to attend parenting coordinator meetings unless agreed to by the parties and the parenting coordinator, or ordered by Court.
Proposed Amendment of Rule 78. Judgments; Costs; Attorneys Fees Proposes to add new paragraph E and corresponding comment to clarify that the procedure governing offers of judgment in civil cases under Civil Rule 68 do not apply in family law proceedings.
2010 Amendments to Arizona Rules of Evidence Rule 408 (R-08-0035) Evidence of Compromise and Offers to Compromise New Rule 502 (R-09-0004) Modeled after Fed. R. Evid. 502 designed to resolve disputes concerning inadvertant and voluntary disclosures. Both effective January 1, 2010
Domestic Violence Rules The Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure (ARPOP) were adopted by the Supreme Court and became effective January 1, 2008.
2009 DV Legislation and Rule Change SB 1088 Amends 13-3601(A)
2009 DV Legislation and Rule Change Effective Sept. 30, 2009
2009 DV Legislation and Rule Change Adds romantic or sexual relationship
Four Factors MAY Be Considered Type of relationship
Four Factors MAY Be Considered Length of the relationship
Four Factors MAY Be Considered Frequency of the interaction between the victim and the defendant
Four Factors MAY Be Considered If the relationship has terminated, the length of time since the termination
Rules Changed to Reflect Change The Supreme Court has amended ARPOP 6(C)(3)(b)(6) on an emergency basis to add this relationship to the OP rule, effective September 30, 2009. See R-09-0026.
New Petition [ ] Romantic or sexual relationship (current or previous)
New Petition Dating but not a romantic or sexual relationship
Proposed 2011 ARPOP Amendments R-10-0017 proposes an amendment of Rule 4(B)(5)(b) that would mandate transfer of ex parte limited jurisdiction court protective orders to superior court when the protected party is the child of the defendant or a person who is subject to a custody, parenting time or visitation order. Proposes an effective date of January 1, 2011.
