Posted on : February 10, 2017, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Domestic Violence and Parenting Time in Arizona
A family court must decide whether a parent presents a danger to a child. If so, it must protect the child by limiting that parent to supervised parenting time. A court that grants such a parent unsupervised parenting time abuses its discretion. In Campbell v. Stephens– 1CA-CV 15-0830 FC, the Arizona Court of Appeals discussed this issue. This decision is listed as not precedential and cannot, therefore, be cited as authority.
Facts of the Case
Mr. Stephens and Mrs. Campbell had one minor child born in 2007. Their child lived with Mrs. Campbell and his older half-sibling until September 2012. At that point, the child’s school noticed that he was covered in bruises.
The Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) removed both children from Mrs. Campbell’s care. The child was placed with Mr. Stephens. Mrs. Campbell admitted that both she and her then-husband had beaten the child with a belt as a punishment. She was convicted of class six felony child abuse. The court placed her on probation for ten years, beginning February 22, 2013.
In December 2012, the family court ordered that Mrs. Campbell not have parenting time with the child. It gave Mr. Stephens sole physical custody and legal decision-making authority. In May 2014, Mrs. Campbell filed a petition to modify, seeking joint legal decision-making and reasonable parenting time. Mr. Stephens agreed that supervised parenting time in a therapeutic environment might be appropriate.
Parenting Time and Domestic Violence in Arizona.
The trial court and the parties attempted to set up therapeutic intervention sessions and family therapy. However, they were unable to make the necessary arrangements.
Mrs. Campbell eventually met with the child and his counselor twice—in March and September 2015. On October 8, 2015, the family court heard Mrs. Campbell’s petition to modify. She had regained custody of her older child, divorced her husband, and completed domestic violence training as part of her probation.
She testified that her two visits with the child went well. She also acknowledged the child’s counselor suggested she make bi-monthly appointments as part of the reunification therapy. Mr. Stephens wanted to continue the reunification therapy for the child before Mrs. Campbell was awarded either supervised or unsupervised parenting time. However, the family court awarded joint legal decision-making. It also awarded Mrs. Campbell supervised parenting time for seven hours a week.
The court further ordered that, after approximately three-and-a-half months, Mrs. Campbell’s parenting time would become unsupervised. It directed that beginning June 5, 2016, the parties would share equal parenting time. Mr. Stephens appealed.
Under Arizona statutes, the court shall not award joint legal decision-making if it finds the existence of or a history of significant domestic violence. Before granting Mrs. Campbell joint legal decision-making, the court was required to consider whether such an award was precluded under A.R.S. § 25-403.03(A). The court made no specific findings of that here. The Court of Appeals vacated that portion of the order. It remanded for the lower court to make appropriate findings of the applicability of § 25-403.03(A).
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.
Mr. Stephens agrees that Mrs. Campbell should renew her relationship with the child in a therapeutic environment and some supervised parenting time. He objects to the quick transition to unsupervised parenting time to equal unsupervised parenting time.
Where a parent has committed an act of domestic violence, that parent is not automatically precluded from parenting time. Rather, that parent has the burden of proving that parenting time will not endanger the child.
However, the law specifies that the safety and well-being of the child are of primary importance. The statute requires the court to make specific findings as to all relevant § 25-403(A) factors and why parenting time is in the child’s best interest.
Here, the court did not make specific findings regarding § 25-403.03(F). Nor did it explain how it weighed the § 25-403 factors to conclude that unsupervised parenting time was in the child’s best interest.
Domestic Violence and Parenting Time in Arizona.
Mrs. Campbell had the burden of proving that unsupervised parenting time will not endanger the child. Based on the trial court’s lack of detailed findings, it is not clear whether she met this burden.
In its order, the family court addressed the § 25-403(A) factors. However, its findings do not necessarily relate to the court’s conclusion that unsupervised parenting time was in the child’s best interests. The court did not appear to consider the behavioral problems the child experienced after having contact with Mrs. Campbell. The trial court’s failure to specify the reasons why unsupervised parenting time is in the child’s best interest was an abuse of discretion.
Based on the evidence in the record, it appears that Mrs. Campbell did not meet her burden. She did not prove that unsupervised parenting time with no reunification therapy was in the child’s best interest.
The Court of Appeals vacated the family court’s legal decision-making and parenting time orders. It remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision. On remand, any orders for supervised or unsupervised parenting time must be based on specific findings of the trial judge.
As Seen on CBS News, ABC News, NBC News, and Fox News