Amber Snodgrass
928-910-5625
1901 W Madison St. #1069
Phoenix, AZ 85009
[email protected] I respectfully submit this comment in response to the Petition to Amend Rules 47, 47.1, 47.2, 48, and 91.5 of the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.
I appreciate the Committee on Family Court’s efforts to address longstanding concerns regarding temporary orders, particularly in cases involving allegations of domestic violence and child safety. The proposed amendments reflect a meaningful attempt to improve clarity, efficiency, and procedural consistency.
However, as currently drafted, certain provisions risk reinforcing existing systemic gaps rather than resolving them, particularly in cases involving domestic violence under A.R.S. § 25-403.03.
1. Lack of Required Findings in Domestic Violence Cases
The proposed language allows courts to rule on contested temporary orders without making findings, even where A.R.S. § 25-403.03 is implicated, requiring only that the court “identify which facts it found to be most important.”
While this may reduce judicial burden, it presents significant legal and practical concerns:
-It limits meaningful appellate review
-It obscures whether statutory mandates were properly applied
-It permits inconsistent application of domestic violence protections
Domestic violence findings are not discretionary under Arizona law. Where § 25-403.03 is implicated, the statute requires careful analysis of safety risks and the impact on the child.
Recommendation:
Require courts to make specific findings as to:
-Whether domestic violence occurred
-Whether § 25-403.03 applies
-How any findings impact parenting time and child safety
Even at the temporary orders stage, at least minimal relevant findings are essential to ensure accountability and protect children.
2. Insufficient Safeguards for Meaningful Hearings
The proposal requires courts to schedule hearings within “reasonable time limits” appropriate to the allegations.
In practice, this standard is too vague and risks perpetuating one of the very concerns identified in the petition: insufficient time to address domestic violence allegations. Without clearer guidance, hearings involving serious safety concerns may continue to be truncated, preventing full presentation of evidence.
Recommendation:
Clarify that courts must ensure sufficient time to meaningfully address domestic violence allegations and defenses. Where necessary, the court should continue the hearing to allow for adequate development of the record.
3. Overly Restrictive Standard for Review of Temporary Orders
The proposed mechanism for reviewing temporary orders relies on a showing of “extraordinary circumstances” or imposes a 180-day limitation.
This standard is overly restrictive given the real-world impact of temporary orders on children and families. Temporary orders often function as de facto final orders, particularly in high-conflict or delayed cases.
Errors affecting child safety should not require a showing of “extraordinary” circumstances to be reviewed.
Recommendation:
Expand the standard for review to include:
-Material changes in circumstances
-Newly available evidence
-Credible safety concerns affecting the child
4. Continued Reliance on Broad Judicial Discretion
Throughout the proposed amendments, key provisions use discretionary language such as “may,” “could,” or “should.”
While flexibility is important, excessive reliance on discretionary language risks inconsistent application across cases, particularly in cases involving domestic violence, where uniformity and adherence to statutory protections are critical.
Recommendation:
Where child safety and domestic violence are implicated, consider replacing discretionary language with mandatory language to ensure consistent application of protections.
5. Need for Explicit Protection of Relevant Evidence
Although the proposal improves factual specificity in pleadings, it does not address a recurring issue in family court proceedings: the exclusion or limitation of relevant evidence of domestic violence and child safety concerns. Procedural barriers should not prevent courts from considering critical safety evidence.
Recommendation:
Include language clarifying that courts should not exclude relevant evidence of domestic violence or child safety concerns where such evidence is necessary to determine the child’s best interests.
6. Clarification Regarding Scope of Required Allegations
The proposed language in Rule 47(a)(1) requiring a party to “state what happened,” including specific acts, dates, and circumstances, would benefit from additional clarification and some additional tools.
As drafted, the rule does not address whether a party may supplement or amend factual allegations after the initial filing, or whether the court may consider relevant facts not included in the motion. This may create uncertainty as to the intended scope of the pleading requirement.
In cases involving domestic violence, information may not always be fully developed or presented in a complete sequence at the time of filing. Additional details may become available as the matter progresses. A trauma-informed approach to these proceedings recognizes that recall and disclosure may evolve over time.
In matters implicating A.R.S. § 25-403.03, the court’s ability to consider all relevant information remains central to its determination of the child’s best interests and safety. In appropriate cases, structured risk assessment tools may also assist the court in evaluating potential danger and informing temporary orders.
Recommendation:
Clarify that:
-The pleading requirement is intended to provide sufficient notice, not to limit the scope of evidence
-Parties may supplement or amend factual allegations as appropriate
-The court may consider relevant evidence beyond the initial filing when evaluating domestic violence and child safety concerns
-The rule should be applied in a manner consistent with a trauma-informed approach to the presentation and evaluation of domestic violence allegations
-Courts should consider the use of validated lethality or risk assessment tools, where appropriate, to inform determinations affecting child and party safety. These are already utilized in other areas of the superior court.
Conclusion:
The proposed amendments are a meaningful step toward improving family court procedures. However, without stronger safeguards, they risk maintaining the very issues they seek to address, particularly in cases involving domestic violence and child safety.
By incorporating targeted revisions to require findings, ensure meaningful hearings, broaden review standards, and protect the consideration of relevant evidence, the Court can significantly strengthen both the fairness and safety of temporary orders proceedings.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment and for your continued efforts to improve Arizona’s family court system.
Respectfully submitted,
Amber Snodgrass