Modification of Child Custody Orders Involving a Child Abduction in Arizona
Posted on : November 23, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Modification of Child Custody Orders Involving a Child Abduction in Arizona
Generally, an Arizona divorce court determines custody issues if the children are before the court. What if the children are only before the court because they were abducted by a noncustodial parent? The Arizona Court of Appeals discussed this issue in the case Stuard v. Bean, 554 P.2d 1293 (1976).
Facts and Background
Mr. Ziglar and Mrs. Ziglar married in Alabama and had two daughters. Mr. Ziglar’s mother, Mrs. Stuard, also lived in Alabama. When Mr. Ziglar and his wife had marital problems, Mr. Ziglar asked his mother (Mrs. Stuard) to take custody of the girls. She agreed and the girls went to live with her in February 1975.
Modification of Child Custody Orders Involving a Child Abduction in Arizona.
Several months later, the Alabama circuit court awarded legal custody of the girls to Mrs. Stuard. In the meantime, Mrs. Ziglar moved to Arizona and obtained a divorce in Cochise County. The divorce order did not rule on custody. It said that custody must be determined under Alabama law since the children were not in Arizona.
Soon after the divorce, Mrs. Ziglar married Mr. Lindo. She then went to court in Alabama to try to regain custody of the two girls. The Alabama court ordered that the girls stay with Mrs. Stuard while it investigated the Lindo and Stuard households. However, the court allowed Mrs. Ziglar to have the children for a weekend.
That weekend, Mrs. Ziglar and her new husband took the children to Arizona and did not return them to Alabama. Mrs. Ziglar petitioned the Arizona court in Pinal County for a temporary child custody order. She also asked it to amend the decree issued in Cochise County.
Mr. Ziglar and his mother came to Arizona with the Alabama orders and returned the girls to Alabama. However, four hooded persons abducted the two girls and returned them to Arizona. Mr. Ziglar and his mother returned to Arizona and petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was issued. It directed that the two girls be placed in the custody of a justice of the peace, pending a hearing.
Mr. Ziglar and Mrs. Stuard asked the court to order that the Alabama court had initial child custody jurisdiction and that the Cochise County court did not. At that hearing, the Pinal County court declined to rule on whether the Cochise County court had child custody jurisdiction. It said the court in Cochise County should make that ruling. It ordered the children to remain with juvenile authorities in Pinal County until the Cochise County court ruled on that issue.
Mr. Ziglar and Mrs. Stuard brought this special action. It challenges the refusal of the Arizona court to decide the jurisdictional issue.
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 first considered whether a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was the proper procedural device here. It determined that it was the appropriate procedure when children have been taken from the person having legal custody.
It next ruled that the court failed to act appropriately when it declined to rule on the jurisdictional issue. The Court of Appeals looked at the issue itself. It determined that the Arizona courts did not have jurisdiction to modify the Alabama child custody orders. As to whether the Arizona courts have jurisdiction to decide permanent custody of the children, the court reviews Arizona Revised Statute Section 25-331.
Child Custody Orders Modification Involving a Child Abduction in Arizona.
Under that statute, it was improper for the real parties in interest to attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Arizona courts after having obtained custody of the children by abducting them from Alabama and returning them to this state.
Arizona case law, embodied in the case of Application of Stone states: “… except for the most compelling reasons the Arizona courts will not exercise jurisdiction to affect a custody decree, rendered by a sister state, having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties thereto, where the party petitioning our courts for relief has wrongfully retained such custody in Arizona for the purpose of frustrating a sister state’s lawful decree.”
The Court concluded that Mrs. Ziglar acted improperly in asking the Arizona courts to rule on custody of children she abducted. Arizona courts will not exercise jurisdiction in this type of case. To do so would encourage kidnapping and contempt for court orders of another state.
The Court of Appeals found that Arizona did not have jurisdiction to determine permanent custody of the two children. The lower court should have made this ruling. The Court ordered the lower court to restore custody of the two children to Mrs. Stuard.