Grandparent rights case not dismissed from superior court where jurisdiction was based on child being born out-of-wedlock, when subsequently parents remarry. See Fry v. Garcia, CA-CV 05-0663.
For Arizona Grandparent Rights matters contact Nirenstein Ruotolo Group.
Arizona Court of Appeals Child Support Ruling -- State ex rel. Dep't of Economic Security (DeMetz) v. DeMetz, Ariz. Ct. App., No. 1 CA-CV 05-0148, 3/28/06).
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the annulment of a child's marriage during her minority revived her unemancipated status and rekindled her divorced father's child support duty.
For Arizona Child Support Advice contact NRG.
Continue Reading...PHOENIX - State representatives voted Monday to make it illegal for a woman to sell her eggs, but refused to impose similar restrictions on men selling their sperm.
The House of Representatives said that a woman who sells her eggs could be sent to prison for up to a year and fined up to $150,000. The same penalty would apply to any organization or doctor who made the purchase.
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 21, 2005 08:30 AM
Maricopa County sheriff's deputies and posse members arrested more than 85 men and women over the weekend during Operation Deadbeat/Domestic Violence.
The effort targeted about 350 parents owing child-support and 400 others with warrants for domestic violence. Sheriff Joe Arpaio said both issues were connected, with spousal abuse at "the front end of a dysfunctional home and failure to pay child support (at) the back end."
Those arrested represented at least $175,000 owed in child-support payments, according to Deputy Doug Matteson. It was the sheriff's latest effort to track down deadbeat parents.
Deputies and posse members annually execute similar operations on Mother's Day, Father's Day and Valentine's Day.
Arpaio said he will persist as long as the problem continues.
"It's not strictly about child support or costing taxpayers money," he said. "I'm more interested in the problem of when you don't supervise your children properly, they get into drugs, violence. It's the bigger picture."
The issue in Monica C. v. ADES was whether the State's error in failing to provide notice of entitlement to a jury trial warrants a new termination hearing.
Click here to read the opinion.
For all of your Arizona family law issues, contact NRG.
Scottsdale, AZ (PRWEB) May 12, 2005 -- Arizona divorce and family law firm Nirenstein, Ruotolo & Gonz√°lez (NRG), PLC announced today that partner and Arizona lawyer J. Vincent Gonz√°lez has been selected as one of the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education's 2005 recipients of "Top Pro Bono Attorneys in Arizona."
Click here for full story.
STANDARDS OF PROOF DIFFER IN TERMINATING RIGHTS AND DECIDING BEST INTEREST
Parental rights termination cases involve two different standards of proof, with termination grounds to be assessed based on clear and convincing evidence, and the question of whether the best interest of the child warrants termination to be determined by a preponderance of evidence, the Arizona Supreme Court decides, confronting the issue for the first time.
For more information, contact one of the attorneys at Nirenstein, Ruotolo & Gonzalez, P.L.C.
Continue Reading...The public is asked for comments on six applicants for an opening created on the Arizona Supreme Court when Chief Justice Charles E. Jones retires in June. Goto "www.myazbar.org/AZBarInfo/AZBarNews.cfm?id=170"> for a list of the applicants' current employment and city of residence.
Paul Davenport
Associated Press
Apr. 30, 2005 12:00 AM
An Arizona Supreme Court ruling requires juries and judges deciding what's in a child's best interest to use an evidence standard that could make it easier to permanently end an unfit parent's rights.
A child's need to live in a "loving, stable" home is at least as important as an unfit parent's rights, the Supreme Court said in the unanimous ruling Thursday.
Click here for the full opinion from the Arizona Supreme Court.
Continue Reading...Divorce lawyer and partner of Arizona Firm Nirenstein, Ruotolo & Gonz√°lez, PLC, was appointed by the State Bar of Arizona.
Scottsdale, AZ (PRWEB) April 19, 2005 -- J. Vincent Gonz√°lez, divorce lawyer and partner in the Scottsdale family law office of Nirenstein, Ruotolo & Gonz√°lez (NRG), PLC, has been appointed to a three-year term as a member of the Conflict Case Committee by the State Bar of Arizona.
Appointed by the State Bar's Board of Governors, Mr. Gonz√°lez will process, investigate and prosecute all aspects of disciplinary cases involving members of the State Bar's Board of Governors, State Bar staff, Supreme Court Disciplinary Hearing Officers, and members of the Court's Disciplinary Commission. Although the Committee consists of eleven members, each member works independently on the matters to which he/she is assigned.
Continue Reading...By CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
04/12/2005
By a 31-20 margin the House gave preliminary approval Monday to legislation letting judges alter how they divide up property in divorces.
Current law requires property to be divided up on an equitable basis. SB 1145 permits a judge to consider "marital misconduct" in making that decision.
The legislation also makes misconduct a factor that may be considered in determining whether one spouse pays alimony to the other and in what amount, and in the payment of child support.
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said misconduct should be a factor. He said it is easier to get out of a 40-year marriage than break a lease.
But Rep. David Bradley, D-Tucson, said this will result only in more acrimonious divorces and more traumatized children. The measure, which already has been approved by the Senate, now needs a final House roll-call vote.
More on this later in the week.
By Keith Rosenblum
He's spent 27 months and counting behind bars at the Santa Cruz County Jail. No end of captivity in sight. This may well be the old man's last address.
Prisoner 44845, Manuel "Manolo" Osete, is a fit, if pale, 72-year-old man who doesn't blend in. He is surrounded by "kids," the drug offenders, the drunken-driving and domestic-violence suspects. Ironically, the kids generally get out after a couple of weeks, either on their own recognizance or on bond.
No one--except Osete--is sentenced here for more than a year. Osete calls the jail home. To date, it has cost the county $55,000 to keep Osete behind bars--and the setting suggests he's a danger to someone.
Conversations with visitors are conducted on the telephone through thick safety glass. Contacts are limited to 15-minute chats on Sunday afternoons. Newspapers and magazines aren't allowed. For his rare appearances in court, he is taken to Tucson in shackles. Time outdoors is limited to about 30 minutes a week, less than what death row inmates generally receive.
So what crime is Osete charged with?
He isn't charged with a crime.
"The other inmates ask me what I'm here for," Osete said. "I tell them, 'Divorce,' and they get a good laugh."
Continue Reading...Richard Obert
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 31, 2005 12:00 AM
Valley Little League baseball and softball administrators ask for just about everything but the parents' firstborn to prove residency, but they realize they're not immune to the cheating that scarred the local Pop Warner scene last fall.
Pop Warner football playoffs were canceled after the Arizona Youth Football Federation discovered widespread abuse of proof of residency requirements and falsification of applications.
Continue Reading...The Maricopa County Superior Court is sponsoring a free seminar series designed to make the Family Court process more accessible and understandable. The next session will be held on Friday, April 1, at 10 a.m. and will focus on the Self Service Center.
Court staff will be on hand to provide information about procedures, documents and issues commonly encountered by litigants in divorce proceedings.
The one-hour session takes place in the jury assembly room of the Superior Court Southeast Facility, 222 E. Javelina Drive, in Mesa.
Court staff designed the seminar topics to help court customers better understand a variety of new and existing court services available to them through Family Court.
For more information, click here.
Jurisdiction Was Lost Under UIFSA When Parties and Child No Longer Reside In Arizona
March 8, 2005
In McHale v. McHale, Ariz. Ct. App., 1 CA-CV 04-0022, (click here for full opinion), the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in holding that it retained jurisdiction to modify its previously issued child support order after both parties and the child had moved from Arizona. Construing the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), the court explained that the trial court misinterpreted the Act when it concluded that it retained modification jurisdiction because the original order had not yet been modified by a court of another state.
Continue Reading...By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
03/11/2005
PHOENIX -- Four Republicans united Thursday to kill legislation to say that the penalty for raping a spouse should be the same as assaulting anyone else.
The vote of the House Committee on Human Services came after foes said they feared boosting the penalty would provide incentives for a wife to charge rape.
"That's going to be much more likely to happen in a scenario where two people are normally having sexual relations and then, if one person decides for whatever reason that they would like to attack the other person this is a very serious way to get it done," said Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa.
There also were questions of whether it is appropriate to have the penalty for rape -- up to 15 years in prison -- apply when the attacker and victim are married.
Continue Reading...By James Gilbert -- The Yuma Sun
Mar 1, 2005
A former St. Francis of Assisi School teacher sentenced to more than seven decades in prison after being convicted of molesting his second-grade students will get a new trial.
The Arizona State Court of Appeals on Thursday overturned a 2003 Yuma County Superior Court conviction against Phillip Gregory Speers.
This is the second conviction against Speers that has been overturned. In September, the appeals court overturned a separate conviction in 2002 for downloading pornographic images of minors from the Internet.
Continue Reading...The discussion continues. What are the benefits vs. drawbacks of all-day kindergarten, a program backed by Governor Janet Napolitano. Parents and legislators remain at odds over program. Click here for coverage in the Arizona Republic.
House Bill 2710 gives same-sex couples the right to name a partner as a life insurance beneficiary, make decisions in life-threatening hospital situations and arrange for the funeral and burial of a partner. It allows them to leave personal belongings to a partner and makes it easier to buy a house jointly as married couples do.
House Bill 2710 is sponsored by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema of Phoenix and 22 other lawmakers, most of them Democrats. It is being offered in the midst of an all-out battle to confirm Arizona's ban on gay marriage through a proposed state constitutional amendment.
Conservative activists and lawmakers, poised to begin collecting the necessary signatures to put the constitutional change on the 2006 ballot, vow to derail Sinema's bill.
The legislation, which will be debated and possibly voted on this week in the House Human Services Committee, gives same-sex couples the right to adopt and splits in half the cost and responsibilities of raising a child.
Critics of same-sex unions said the bill is nothing more than another attempt to legalize gay marriage. To read the full article which appeared in The Arizona Republic, click here.
Here, we continue with our comments on the Revised Arizona Child Support Guidelines, effective January 1, 2005.
Section 24 -- Modification
Section 24 discusses modifications to child support orders. The reference to "prima facie evidence" was changed to "evidence". Many self-represented litigants use the guidelines to calculate child support; such legal terminology was thought to be confusing.
Section 18 -- Travel Expenses Associated With Visitation (Parenting Time)
Section 18 addresses allocation of children's travel expenses for parenting time purposes. The new guidelines clarify that for this purpose "long distance" generally means more than 100 miles in distance. The change was made to be consistent with A.R.S. Section 25-408(C)(2)'s requirement regarding notification when a parent intends to relocate a child more than 100 miles or more. Defining the distance requirement provides clear direction for the court when allocating travel costs.
Section 12 -- Equal Custody
The two paragraphs at the end of the prior section 10 discuss the method to use in equal physical custody calculations. This function is separate and distinct from the parenting time adjustment described in another section but is frequently confused with that adjustment. The new Section 12 was separated out to emphasize the separate methodology to use for equal physical custody cases.
Here is another change:
Section 4 -- Duration of Child Support
This section has been added to provide for a presumptive termination date and constitutes the most significant change of the entire revision. The hope is that this change will alleviate some problems with overpayments at the termination of the order for child support when the payor is current. It also is anticipated that the change will assist the Division of Child Support Enforcement to better automate the termination of the child support order in the ATLAS system.
Continue Reading...As you may now, effective January 1, 2005, there have been numerous changes to the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. Over the next couple of days, we will make note of some of the more significant changes.
Section 2 -- Premises
A custodial parent may be ordered to pay child support.
A premise is added to clarify that the custodial parent could be ordered to pay child support. This can occur in the unusual circumstance where a custodial parent earns an extremely high income and the non-custodial parent earns a low income and exercises in excess of 100 days of parenting time per year.
This was not seen as a substantive change to the Guidelines. It was apparently intended only to make explicit what was previously implicit.
A marriage between two first cousins that was legally entered into in Virginia, and recognized as valid when the couple later moved to Arizona, was not invalidated by a subsequent amendment to the Arizona marriage law declaring such marriages to be void, the Arizona Court of Appeals decided in Cook v. Cook, Ariz. Ct. App., No. 03-0727, 1/13/05).
The court ruled that the parties' marriage was a substantively vested right, and that if the amended statute were construed to take away that right, it would run afoul of the prohibition against retroactive legislation (The parties married in Virginia in 1984 and moved to Arizona in 1989. Marriage between first cousins is valid in Virginia, but Arizona law has always provided that a marriage between first cousins in Arizona is void. However, when the parties moved to Arizona, that state's law also provided that "[m]arriages valid by the laws of the place where contracted are valid in this state." Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-112(A).
In 1996, Arizona lawmakers amended § 25-112(A) to add the phrase "except marriages that are void and prohibited by § 25-101." Section 25-101 is the provision that makes marriages between certain persons--including first cousins--void. Thus, under the amended language of § 25-112(A), the parties' marriage was valid in Arizona in 1989 but subsequently declared void by the 1996 amendment.
The husband filed for divorce in 1997, but then moved for a dismissal, alleging that the parties' marriage was void. The trial court denied the motion, holding that because the law prior to 1996 permitted recognition of the marriage, the amendment to § 25-112(A) could not be retroactively applied to void a marriage that was valid when the parties moved to Arizona. After a trial, the court entered various property and support orders. The husband appealed.
Significant Exception
Addressing only the validity of the parties' marriage, Judge Daniel A. Barker first confronted the question whether that validity should be determined under Virginia or Arizona law. He noted that "[w]ith a significant exception applicable here, Arizona follows the general rule that it is the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated, not the law of the place where the divorce takes place, that determines the validity of the marriage." (Citing Horton v. Horton, 198 P. 1105, 1107 (Ariz. 1921).)
That exception, Barker said, is that the power to define a valid marriage in Arizona is vested in the state's legislature and not in the legislature or judiciary of another state (or in the judiciary of Arizona). "Thus we have long recognized that the legislature of this state, notwithstanding the general rule, may declare what marriages are valid (or void) in Arizona even if the marriage pertains to persons 'who were in good faith domiciled in the state where the ceremony was performed' and the marriage is valid in that state," he explained.
Choice of Law
Barker went on to say that in examining the choice-of-law issues surrounding out-of-state marriages, it is important to consider Arizona's treatment of the principles set forth in the Restatement (2d) of Conflicts of Laws (1971) pertaining to marriage. Noting that Restatement § 283(2) invokes the element of which state had "the most significant relationship" to the parties at the time of the marriage in determining which state's law to apply, he emphasized that, as "Horton expressly holds, the Arizona legislature is free to ignore (subject to constitutional constraints) the policy considerations of another state in determining whether marriages are valid or void in Arizona regardless of whether that other state had the more significant relationship."
Commenting "that our cases instruct us to look to Arizona's statutes on the validity of marriage--even if another state has a more significant relationship--is particularly apt given the importance of marriage and the present divergent views on that subject," Barker asserted that "[u]nless constitutionally required, Arizona should not be held hostage to the policies of another state on a subject so vital as who may or may not marry." He thus concluded that it was not necessary to apply Virginia law to this case, even though Virginia had the more significant relationship to the parties at the time of the marriage.
Arizona Law
Therefore turning to the Arizona statute, Barker recognized that legislation may not disturb vested substantive rights by retroactively changing the law. Asserting that marriage is a substantive right that "goes to the bedrock of our society," he said the inquiry thus became whether the wife here had a vested right in her marriage.
Barker acknowledged that determining whether such a right (the recognition of one's marriage) has vested does not fit neatly into the jurisprudence concerning vested rights, which deals primarily with property rights. Noting, however, that the standard for determining "vested" rights has been defined as an immediate fixed right to present or future enjoyment, he said that the status of being married met that definition. "Under this standard, and by virtue of residing in Arizona for seven years when Arizona's legislature expressly authorized the marriage into which she had entered, [the wife]'s right to have her marriage recognized 'vested'," Barker declared, noting that his conclusion was also supported by the law pertaining to community property.
Prospective Application
Stressing that when the parties moved to Arizona in 1989 their marriage was valid under Arizona law, Barker held that in the context of a claim of a "void" marriage under § 25-112(A), "one's right to have an out-of-state marriage deemed valid in the state of Arizona vests upon the following conditions: (1) the marriage was valid in the state where contracted; (2) the parties to the marriage were residents of Arizona prior to the enactment of the amendment to § 25-112(A) on July 20, 1996; and (3) that during this period of residency in Arizona their marriage was validly recognized under the statutory scheme then in place in Arizona."
"Accordingly, we can give legitimate meaning to the term 'void' in the 1996 amendments by applying it to marriages from other jurisdictions in which the parties had no vested right to have their marriage recognized in Arizona," Barker said. Because the marriage here did not fall within that category, he affirmed the ruling below.
Is it unethical for a lawyer to engage in sexual relations with a client?
The State Bar says: Yes, unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship began. To read the full opinion, click here.
Yavapai County Superior Court has established local rule 8.1, effective February 1, 2005, which sets forth the practice to be followed when submitting consent decrees to the court for signature.
Continue Reading...The Department of Vital Records has informed all Arizona courts that name change orders (or to list the name of the father in a paternity case) that do not contain language explicitly ordering Vital Records to make a change in its records will NOT be acted on by Vital Records, and that Persons requesting an amended birth certificate from Vital Records, will be referred back to the courts.
In other words, make sure Vital Records is expressly ordered to take particular action. Otherwise, you are likely to face administrative issues.
In determining the validity of an out-of-state marriage that is expressly prohibited by A.R.S. §§ 25-101 and -112, does one apply the law from the state where the marriage was celebrated or the law of the state of Arizona?
The Court of Appeals in Cook v. Cook, CA-CV03-0727 (Ct. App., Div 1. 01/13/05), addressed this issue. To read the text of the opinion, click here.
This case has great implications to those spouses out their who think that they can beat the divorce court by taking all of the debt in a divorce action and then run over to the bankruptcy court and have it discharged.
In Birt v. Birt, the Husband's filing of a Chapter 7 Bankrutpcy approximately two months after the entry of the parties Decree of Dissolution resulting in Wife being obligated to pay all community debt and remaining liable for property equalization payments to Husband, created "such a substantial injustice that it overrides the committment to finality of judgments and on the factsof this case call for relief under Rule 60(c)(6).".
The trial court on remand, was directed to determine: (1) Whether to affirm an award of attorney's fees and clarify whether it is in the nature of nondischargeable maintenance or support rather than part of a property division; (2) Whether the bankruptcy discharge resulting in the doubling of Wife's ultimate liability on community debts requires an award of spousal maintenance to Wife; (3) Whether the discharged creditors have reached any agreements with Wife to limit the Wife's obligation on the debts; (4) Whether to reallocate property, debts or equalization payments; and (5) Whether the original allocations were in the nature of spousal maintenance or child support rather than a simple division of property and debt.
Enter keywords:
How can we help? All inquiries will not be treated as confidential or privileged, and any email communications may be disclosed to other persons without regard to confidentiality considerations. If you must send us confidential or proprietary information please clearly indicate so and we will make every effort to treat it that way.
