joint hearing in Arizona

2021Concerning the private interests at stake, parents have “a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” Kent K., 210 Ariz. at 284, ¶ 24 .

2021See ARCAP 11(a) (outlining the composition of the “record on appeal”). ¶7 In support of his argument, Father asks us to reject the analysis in Vera v. Rogers, 246 Ariz. 30, 33, ¶ 10 (App. 2018), which explained “the interplay between the procedural rules and statutes governing 3 GRAVES v. SLAWSON Decision of the Court protective orders and family law proceedings.” In Vera, we held that when a protective order and a request for parenting-time conflict, the superior court may “consider them together in a joint hearing . . . [to] fashion an appropriate solution.” Id. at 33–34, ¶¶ 14–15; see Ariz.

2021See ARCAP 11(a) (outlining the composition of the “record on appeal”). ¶7 In support of his argument, Father asks us to reject the analysis in Vera v. Rogers, 246 Ariz. 30, 33, ¶ 10 (App. 2018), which explained “the interplay between the procedural rules and statutes governing 3 GRAVES v. SLAWSON Decision of the Court protective orders and family law proceedings.” In Vera, we held that when a protective order and a request for parenting-time conflict, the superior court may “consider them together in a joint hearing . . . [to] fashion an appropriate solution.” Id. at 33–34, ¶¶ 14–15; see Ariz.

2011See A.R.S. § 12-2234; Boyd v. Comdata Network, Inc., 88 S.W.3d 203, 217 (Tenn.Ct.App.2002) (”[T]he compelled disclosure of the existence of a joint defense agreement is an improper intrusion into the preparation of a litigant’s case.... ”). 6 .

2008Because a superior court judge has inherent authority to conduct such proceedings and issue such orders as are necessary to the complete administration of justice, Schavey v. Roylston, 8 Ariz.App. 574, 575 , 448 P.2d 418, 419 (1968) (“Courts have inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice.”), we believe Judge Baca, in her capacity as presiding criminal judge, had inherent authority to schedule a consolidated hearing for the limited purpose of receiving evidence and ruling on the privileged visitation issue.

2008Because a superior court judge has inherent authority to conduct such proceedings and issue such orders as are necessary to the complete administration of justice, Schavey v. Roylston, 8 Ariz.App. 574, 575 , 448 P.2d 418, 419 (1968) (“Courts have inherent power to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice.”), we believe Judge Baca, in her capacity as presiding criminal judge, had inherent authority to schedule a consolidated hearing for the limited purpose of receiving evidence and ruling on the privileged visitation issue.