Courtney v. Hon. foster/courtney
235 Ariz. 613
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother (Josephina Courtney) filed for dissolution and sought temporary parenting time for the parties’ minor child after Father (Clint Courtney) had obtained an ex parte order of protection in Tolleson Municipal Court that listed the child as a protected person.
- The municipal court later amended the protective order to allow Mother e-mail or regular mail contact with the child.
- The protective order was transferred to the superior court under A.R.S. § 13-3602(P).
- At an evidentiary hearing, the superior court concluded it lacked authority to modify the protective order and denied Mother temporary parenting time.
- Mother petitioned for special action review arguing the superior court does have authority to grant temporary parenting time or condition it despite an existing protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court may consider and grant temporary parenting time (with conditions) when a protective order from a municipal court includes the child as a protected person | Superior court has authority in a dissolution to decide custody/temporary parenting time and may condition or modify a protective order under A.R.S. § 25-403.03(F) to protect the child | Protective order controls and superior court may not modify or override the municipal protective order to grant parenting time | Court held superior court has authority to hear parenting-time requests in a dissolution, may apply § 25-403.03(F) and, if satisfied that parenting time will not endanger the child, may impose conditions or modify the protective order accordingly |
| Standard/burden for a parent who has committed domestic violence to obtain parenting time | Mother must prove to the court’s satisfaction that parenting time will not endanger the child or significantly impair the child’s emotional development; if met, court may impose protective conditions | Father urged that the protective order precluded such a process; alternatively requested therapeutic parenting time | Court confirmed § 25-403.03(F) places the burden on the parent to prove parenting time is safe; if proved, court may order supervised exchanges, counseling, confidentiality, prohibit overnight time, or other necessary conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- Villares v. Pineda, 217 Ariz. 623, 177 P.3d 1195 (App. 2008) (special action jurisdiction appropriate for temporary orders)
- Jordan v. Rea, 221 Ariz. 581, 212 P.3d 919 (App. 2009) (special action appropriate for issues of first impression and pure legal questions)
- Devenir Assocs. v. City of Phx., 169 Ariz. 500, 821 P.2d 161 (1991) (statutory and rule interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Pflum v. Pflum, 135 Ariz. 304, 660 P.2d 1231 (App. 1983) (superior court has exclusive jurisdiction over custody in divorce actions)
- Arpaio v. Baca, 217 Ariz. 570, 177 P.3d 312 (App. 2008) (recognizing inherent authority of superior court to take actions to administer justice in pending cases)
- Acker v. CSO Chevira, 188 Ariz. 252, 934 P.2d 816 (App. 1997) (court’s inherent authority includes powers necessary for efficient exercise of jurisdiction)