Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute between divorced parents over the relocation and custody of their minor son, following a violation of due process in a previous hearing. After the parents divorced in 2008, they shared joint legal decision-making, with the father as the primary residential parent. The mother relocated to Kansas in 2010, and in 2018, she sought to modify parenting time and support. The superior court initially ordered the son's relocation to Kansas, citing safety concerns but without considering relevant factors or due process. The appellate court in a prior action (Coffee I) found a due process violation and ordered a new evidentiary hearing. The father subsequently sought to change the trial judge, invoking Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 42.1(e), as he had not previously exercised this right. The superior court denied this request, but the appellate court granted relief, mandating a new judge and hearing, emphasizing the potential for judicial bias. The appellate court clarified that jurisdiction remains with the superior court during special actions unless stayed. The court denied the mother's request for attorneys' fees due to lack of evidence. The outcome underlines the procedural rights for a fair hearing and the opportunity to change judges under specific circumstances.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Family Court Rules Post-January 2019subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The family court rules clarify that the right to change judges is renewed when an appellate decision requires a new trial or contested hearing.
Reasoning: The family court rules, effective January 1, 2019, further specify that the right to change judges is renewed when an appellate decision requires a new trial or contested hearing.
Due Process in Child Relocation Hearingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Father's due process rights were violated in the initial hearing, prompting the appellate court to order a new evidentiary hearing that complied with due process requirements.
Reasoning: The appellate court found that the superior court had violated Father's due process rights regarding the relocation of his minor son, directing a new evidentiary hearing to reassess the relocation and related child support issues.
Jurisdiction of Superior Court during Special Actionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The superior court retains jurisdiction over a case during special actions unless specifically limited by a stay order.
Reasoning: Unless the appellate court issues a stay, the superior court can continue with the underlying action during a special action. Even with a stay, the superior court retains jurisdiction, only limited by the specific terms of the stay order.
Potential for Judicial Bias and Change of Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The potential for bias, even if unconscious, justifies a change of judge after an appellate decision mandates reassessment based on unconsidered evidence.
Reasoning: Additionally, there is no requirement for proof of actual bias under Rule 42.1(e); the mere potential for bias—whether conscious or subconscious—suffices to justify a change of judge.
Right to Change Judge under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 42.1(e)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Parties have the right to request a change of judge when a case is remanded for a new trial and they have not previously exercised this right.
Reasoning: Rule 42.1(e) allows a party to request a new trial judge when an appellate court remands a case for a new trial and the requesting party has not previously removed a judge.