Best Interests Standard Does Not Apply When a Third Person Seeks Custody of a Child in Arizona
Posted on : October 11, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Best Interests Standard Does Not Apply When a Third Person Seeks Custody of a Child in Arizona
Arizona law recognizes a parent’s fundamental right to raise his or her children. When a grandparent refuses to return a child to the custodial parent, the parent can file a habeas corpus petition. Can the judge hear arguments that a child staying with the parent is not in the child’s best interests? The Court of Appeals considered this issue in Webb v. Charles, 611 P. 2d 562 (1980).
Facts of the Case
Best Interest Standard Does not Apply When a Third Person Seeks Custody of a Child.
Mr. Webb and Mrs. Webb were not married when they had a child, K. Webb. They married afterward and Mr. Webb acknowledged paternity. The child lived with both parents until his mother died in an auto accident. After her funeral, K. Webb was taken to the home of his maternal grandmother, Mrs. Charles. Mr. Webb requested the return of his child, Mrs. Charles refused. He filed a habeas corpus petition.
The court held a habeas corpus hearing. At the hearing, Mrs. Charles charged that Mr. Webb was not K. Webb’s father and that he was an unfit custodial parent. Mr. Webb argued that the court only had jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petition. The court rejected Mr. Webb’s argument. It ordered an investigation into Mr. Webb’s fitness to regain physical custody of his son.
Subsequently, a response to the habeas corpus petition was filed. It charged that it would be in the best interests of the child if custody were awarded to the grandmother. A commissioner heard the matter. The commissioner found that Mr. Webb was K. Webb’s natural father. He also found that he abused K. Webb, making him a dependent child under Arizona law.
The court gave custody of the child to the Arizona Department of Economic Security. It also instructed the ADES to place the child with the grandmother. It denied the petition for habeas corpus. Mr. Webb appealed.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the issue of the court’s jurisdiction. The commissioner determined he had jurisdiction under A.R.S. Sec. 8-532. It reads as follows:
“The juvenile court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions to terminate the parent-child relationship when the child involved is present in the state.”
Best Interests Standard is Not Applicable When a Third Person Seeks Custody of a Child.
However, the commissioner hearing this case was not a juvenile court judge. He was not appointed to hear the matter by the juvenile division of the superior court. Therefore, he could not exercise subject matter jurisdiction. Mrs. Charles argues that in a habeas corpus hearing about child custody, the critical issue is the child’s best interest.
However, Arizona law discusses what happens if a non-parent seeks custody when a parent has physical custody of the child. It specifies that the “child’s best interest” standard does not apply. Rather, the non-parent must proceed under the juvenile court laws, not the domestic relations laws. The standards for intervention under the juvenile act are much more rigorous than what is found in the domestic relations laws.
In short, the court below had jurisdiction only to hear the habeas corpus petition. Mr. Webb must prevail if he is found to be the child’s natural father and sole surviving parent. The trial court found that he was both.
The Court of Appeals said that it appreciated the lower court’s concern for the best interest of the child. However, it noted that if any action that deprives a parent of the right to raise his child must strictly comply with the laws. The Court suggested that Mrs. Charles use statutory remedies available to her in the juvenile court.
Disposition
The Court determined that the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear any other matter than the habeas corpus petition. It reversed and remanded the case to the lower court.
