CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND
DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM
COMMITTEE

State of Arizona

2000 Annual Report

Submitted by:

Representative Karen Johnson
Representative Laura Knaperek
Senator David Petersen

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
AND
DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM
COMMITTEE

Members:
Representative Karen Johnson
Co-chair, Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee

Vacant
Co-chair, Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee

Representative Laura Knaperek
Co-chair, Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee

Senator David Petersen
Co-chair, Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Child Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations
Reform
Committee: Members

Executive Summary ......................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................ 3

Historical Background ........................................................... 3
Legislative Response ................................................................ 4
Membership ............................................................................... 5
Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee 20008

Summary .................................................................................... 8
Membership ............................................................................... 8
Work, Findings and Recommendations .......................... 9
Tasks and Objectives .................................................. 10

Recommendations for Legislative Action ........... 16
Other Issues Before the Council ............................. 17

Future Actions ....................................................................... 17
Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee 2000

Summary ................................................................................. 18
Membership ............................................................................ 19
Work, Findings and Recommendations ....................... 19
Future Actions .............................................................................
Appendix

Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee ............. i

Purpose .......................................................................................... i
Membership ................................................................................. i

Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee:

Members ...............................................................................................iv

Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee ................ v

Purpose ......................................................................................... v
Membership ................................................................................ v
Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee:
Members ......................................................................................... viii

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND

DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM COMMITTEE
2000 ANNUAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As required by law (A.R.S. §320.01.A), the Child Support
Enforcement

and

Domestic

Relations

Reform

Committee,

comprised of Hon. Ann Day, Hon. Karen Johnson, Hon. Laura
Knaperek and Hon. David Petersen, submits to the Governor,
the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme
Court the following report.
During

the

Coordinating
Domestic

year

Council

Relations

2000,

both

Subcommittee
Reform

Study

the

Child

(“Council”)

Support
and

Subcommittee

the
(“DR

Subcommittee”) continued to explore concepts for improving
the child support and domestic relations systems. Subcommittee
and

workgroup

legislative

deliberations

changes

as

resulted

workgroups

in

recommended

appointed

by

each

1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

subcommittee developed ideas and evaluated recommendations
for future change.
The Council was originally conceived as a forum for all
system stakeholders to develop and coordinate policies and
strategies to improve the child support system. The Council’s
efforts this year again evidenced the wisdom and importance of
forging collaborative solutions. In 2000, the Legislature enacted
legislation based on proposals developed and recommended by
the Council.

The product of various workgroups, the omnibus

legislative proposal affects the centralized processing of support
payments, allows the court to suspend interest on child support
judgments for incapacitated or incarcerated payors, and
clarifies that jury trials are not required in administrative
appeals of child support matters. A separate legislative proposal
submitted by Senator Petersen codifies earlier session law
establishing the Council and DR Subcommittee and continues
these groups until July 1, 2007.
Efforts of various Council workgroups have produced
further recommendations intended for introduction to the
Legislature in 2001.

Proposed are amendments that clarify

that only “future” interest may be suspended on child support
judgments for incapacitated or incarcerated payors, clarify the
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

procedure

for

obtaining

a

judgment

for

child

support

arrearages, delete obsolete statutes, add a new procedure for
intrastate transfer of child support cases from one county to the
county where the child resides and make necessary technical
corrections in child support statutes.
Notably, a Council work group continued throughout the
year to improve the process for centralized processing of support
payments.

The committed efforts of the same group previously

culminated in a statewide conversion to receipting, posting and
distribution of all child support and spousal maintenance
payments by a single clearinghouse earning the Governor’s Spirit
of Excellence Award.
When the DR Subcommittee reconvened at the end of the
1999 legislative session, members moved forward with the
mission to broadly reform the state’s domestic relations statutes.
Rejuvenated by new members in late 1999, the Subcommittee
embarked on strategic planning to set its agenda for the new
millennium. Three new work groups were formed to focus on
specific issues in the areas of education and prevention,
substantive

law

and

court

procedures.

Although

no

recommendations for legislative enactment were proposed
during the Forty-fourth Legislature, the ground work was laid
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

for

accomplishment

of

long-term

objectives

designed

to

facilitate the adjudication of domestic relations cases in the best
interests

of

families

and

children.

Efforts

of

the

DR

Subcommittee workgroups have produced recommendations
intended for introduction to the Legislature in 2001.

4
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM

COMMITTEE 2000 ANNUAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
Historical Background

Session law establishing the Child Support Enforcement
and Domestic Relations Reform Committee grew from the work
of a legislative advisory committee.
In June 1993, Senator John Greene, President of the
Senate, and Representative Mark Killian, Speaker of the House
of Representatives, appointed a Joint Select Committee on
Child Support Enforcement, co-chaired by Senator Matt
Salmon and Representative Pat Blake Wilder, with the goal of
creating an effective child support system for Arizona families
and children. To assist in this effort, in July 1993, the Select
Committee

appointed

a

Technical

Advisory

Committee,

co-chaired by David Byers, Administrative Director of the
Courts, and Bonnie Tucker, Deputy Director of the Arizona
Department of Economic Security.

5
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

The Technical Advisory Committee brought together the
major stakeholders in the statewide child support arena.
Membership

represented

administrators,

parents,

a

cross

judicial

section

officers

of

and

program
attorneys,

creating a forum for meaningful debate on the issues facing
Arizona's child support enforcement system.
The Technical Advisory Committee identified various
problems within the system and recommended solutions for
corrective action, including identification of the agency or
entity responsible for initiating implementation. The Committee
developed

57

recommendations,

legislative

action.

At

the

of

conclusion

which

28

of

mission,

its

required
the

Committee submitted a report of its recommendations, dated
November 1, 1993.
In the course of deliberations, there was consensus that
integrated planning and communication among all of the child
support stakeholders is vital to ensure continued improvement
in the system. Thus, the first recommendation made in the
Committee's report was that a child support coordinating
council be formed to provide a mechanism for on-going
communication and integrated planning among stakeholders to
ensure consistency in child support policies.

6
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

A specific problem identified by the Technical Advisory
Committee concerned the difficulty in understanding laws and
procedures resulting from the lack of integration of the statutes
relating to domestic relations issues. To address this problem, it
was recommended that a domestic relations reform study
committee be established to consolidate, revise and modernize
the domestic relations statutes.

Legislative Response
During the forty-first session, the Legislature created each
of the two subcommittees proposed in the recommendations of
the Technical Advisory Committee.

By Laws 1994, Chapter

374, Section 24, both the Child Support Coordinating Council
Subcommittee (“Council”) and the Domestic Relations Reform
Study Subcommittee (“DR Subcommittee”) were established
within a single legislative committee titled the Child Support
Enforcement and Domestic Relations Reform Committee.
The Child Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations
Reform Committee consist of the four co-chairs (or their
designees) from each of the two subordinate subcommittees.
This overarching committee was established to coordinate the
work of the subcommittees, but is specifically directed not to
7
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

make

substantive

changes

to

the

work,

findings

or

recommendations of the two subcommittees. Any conflicts
between the findings or recommendations of the subcommittees
are to be referred back to the subcommittees for resolution.
Each of the subcommittees is co-chaired by a member of
the Senate and a member of the House of Representatives. The
enabling

legislation

identified

the

composition

of

each

subcommittee's membership and prescribed the tasks to be
undertaken. Reports are to be submitted by the subcommittees
quarterly to the Child Support Enforcement and Domestic
Relations Reform Committee. The overarching committee is
responsible to report annually on the work, findings and
recommendations of the subcommittees to the Governor, the
President

of

the

Senate,

the

Speaker

of

the

House

of

Representatives and the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme
Court.
The original legislation creating the committee and its
subcommittees was effective July 17, 1994. That same
enabling law appropriated funds to the Arizona Supreme Court
for costs associated with staffing the subcommittees. In July
1994, the Arizona Supreme Court designated the Domestic
Relations Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts to
provide that support.
8
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

The legislation which originally established the committee
and its two subcommittees was scheduled for repeal from and
after December 31, 1997.

Provisions of law enacted in 1997

(Laws 1997, Chapters 45, 176 and 250) extended this date,
so that each of the subcommittees was to continue to serve the
public until December 31, 2000.

In 1998, the Domestic

Relations Division joined with the Court Services Division and
became the Domestic Relations Unit.

In 2000, the Domestic

Relations Unit’s name was changed to the Family Law Unit.
New legislation (Laws 2000, Chapter 312) repealed Laws
1994,

Chapter

374,

25-320.01 to statute.

Section

24

and

added

A.R.S.

§

This new statute, effective as of

July18, 2000, creates the committee and subcommittees by
statute, rather than session law, and extends the life of the
committee and the two subcommittees until July 1, 2007.
The new statute further specifies that the Domestic Relations
Reform Study Subcommittee is to meet jointly with the Child
Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee at least two times
per year.

9
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Membership
The session law originally enacted in 1994 outlined the
membership of each subcommittee by position or category and
directed how chairpersons would be appointed. In 1995, the
Legislature amended this law. Chapter 44 of the Laws of 1995
altered the numbers of subcommittee members and attempted
to balance political party representation of legislative members.
The 1995 law also directly affected the composition of the
Council.
Under the original law, the only legislative members of the
Council were the two subcommittee co-chairs, one appointed
from each legislative chamber. As amended, session law
provided there shall be two members of the Senate from
different political parties and two members of the House of

Representatives, also from different political parties. As a result,
two additional members, both of the minority party, were
added to the Council in 1995. Co-chairperson positions were
unaffected.
The 1995 amendment spoke to, but did not require a
change in, membership of the DR Subcommittee. Under the
original session law, the DR Subcommittee's membership
included two members of the Senate and two members of the
0
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

House of Representatives, as well as a co-chairperson appointed
from each chamber. The 1995 amendment changed session law
to provide that the legislative membership should include three

members of the Senate and three members of the House of

Representatives, in each case not more than two of whom are
from the same political party.
From the outset of its deliberations, six legislators have
served on the DR Subcommittee--three members of the state
Senate and three members of the House of Representatives. Of
these, four are of the majority party and two are of the
minority party, achieving the political balance intended by the
1995 amendment.
A 1997 amendment altered the membership of the DR
Subcommittee.

From the inception, six parents served on the

subcommittee--two

custodial

parents,

two

non-custodial

parents and two parents having joint custody, all of whom
must be knowledgeable in domestic relations issues. In 1997,
the Legislature added two additional parent members without
any requirement of custodial status (Laws 1997, Chapter 176,
Section 2). This addition permitted parents who are not
divorced or separated to serve.

In 2000, by statute the

Legislature added four additional members: representative of a
domestic

violence

coalition;

representative

of

a

domestic
1
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

violence coalition; representative of a faith-based organization

knowledgeable in domestic relations issues; and marriage and
family therapist.

f
o
s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r
l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
d
e
d
d
a
e
r
u
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
L
e
h
t
,
7
9
9
1
n
I

l
a
n
i
g
i
r
o
e
h
t
o
t
)
3
7
1
r
e
t
p
a
h
C
,
7
9
9
1
s
w
a
L
(
t
n
e
m
d
n
e
m
a
n
A
.
p
i
h
s
r
e
b
m
e
m

t
a
h
t
d
e
d
i
v
o
r
p
)
4
2
n
o
i
t
c
e
s
,
4
7
3
r
e
t
p
a
h
c
,
4
9
9
1
s
w
a
L
(
w
a
l
g
n
i
l
b
a
n
e

e
h
t
t
a
s
m
r
e
t
r
a
e
y
o
w
t
e
v
r
e
s
l
l
a
h
s
e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
c
b
u
s
h
c
a
e
f
o
s
r
e
b
m
e
m

.
m
e
h
t
d
e
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
o
h
w
s
l
a
i
c
i
f
f
o
r
o
l
a
i
c
i
f
f
o
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
s
a
e
l
p

e
d
a
m
e
b
l
l
a
h
s
s
t
n
e
m
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
e
h
t
t
a
h
t
d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s
w
a
l
e
h
t
,
y
l
l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
A
e
b
y
a
m
s
r
e
b
m
e
m
t
a
h
t
d
n
a
r
a
e
y
l
a
c
s
i
f
n
e
v
e
h
c
a
e
f
o
t.
rd
ae
tt
s
n
i
eo
hp
t
p
a
te
ar

Parent members who are judges
be judges or commissioners.

Parent members now may not
requirements of membership.

additional
added
again
Legislature
the
2000,
In

or commissioners may serve out the remainder of their terms,
however.

2
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C

t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

CHILD SUPPORT COORDINATING COUNCIL
SUBCOMMITTEE
2000

Summary
In

2000,

the

importance

of

the

Child

Support

Coordinating Council (“Council”) as a recognized forum for
cooperative decision making in the area of child support
enforcement was reaffirmed.

An omnibus legislative package

developed by the Council was passed by the Legislature in 2000.
Among

its

provisions

are

amendments

that

affect

the

centralized processing of support payments, codify earlier
session law establishing the Council and DR Subcommittee and
continue these groups until the end of 2007, allow the court to
suspend interest on child support judgments for incapacitated
or incarcerated payors, and clarify that jury trials are not
required in administrative appeals of child support matters.
Through the activities of various workgroups, additional
recommendations for legislation improving the child support
system were developed for introduction in 2001. Proposed are
amendments that clarify that only “future” interest may be
suspended on child support judgements for incapacitated or
3
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

incarcerated payors, clarify the procedure for obtaining a

judgment for child support arrearages, delete obsolete statutes,
add a new procedure for intrastate transfer of child support

cases from one county to the county where the child resides and
make necessary technical corrections in child support statutes.

Membership

The session law originally establishing the Council (Laws

1994, Chapter 374, Section 24) prescribed the membership

composition of the Council by title or category and directed how
each would be appointed.

7g
e
6d
-u
0J
0
0g
2n
i
rd
e
i
ds
re
O
r
P
es
va
i
t
l
ai
rc
t
n
su
io
nC
i
e
m
dh
At
o
dt
es
nk
g
c
i
i
sH
t.
eG
ky
an
l
a
Z
h
t
ee
c
B
ie
tg
sd
u
u
J
J
fg
e
n
ii
ht
Cn
i
o
p
p
a
t
r
u
o
C
r
o
i
r
e
p
u
S
e
h
t
f
o
t
n
e
m
t
r
a
p
e
D
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
e
h
t
m
o
r
f

e
s
o
h
w
,
g
n
o
r
t
s
m
r
A
.
W
k
r
a
M
e
g
d
u
J
d
e
c
a
l
p
e
r
s
k
c
i
H
e
g
d
u
J
.
)
n
a
b
r
U
(

ee
tg
ad
iu
cJ
o
s
s.
Ay
t
sn
au
o
nC
o
ia
tp
i
o
sc
oi
pr
a
wM
e
nn
si
it
hr
u
fo
o
C
er
uo
ti
rr
i
e
v
p
yu
bS
df
eo
r
e
ig
p
d
xu
eJ
p
ig
h
n
s
i
rd
ei
b
s
me
er
mP
t.
u
s
br
a
re
e
by
me
ee
m
r
h
at
sr
ao
yf
l
s
np
o
u
o
tr
og
nk
lr
io
cw
n
l
ua
or
Ce
v
ee
hs
t
nf
oo
yr
l
e
eb
vm
i
te
cm
ad
dn
ea
vr
r
i
ea
sh
gc
n
h
o
t
ro
tb
s
m
rs
Aa
a
p
o
c
i
r
a
M
n
i
t
r
u
o
C
r
o
i
r
e
p
u
S
e
h
t
n
i
r
e
n
o
i
s
s
i
m
m
o
C
a
s
a
w
s
k
c
i
H
e
g
d
u
J

y
r
e
v
e
h
g
u
o
r
h
t
d
e
t
a
t
o
r
d
n
a
s
r
a
e
y
e
v
i
f
y
l
e
t
a
m
i
x
o
r
p
p
a
r
o
f
y
t
n
u
o
C

y
l
i
m
a
F
n
i
t
n
e
m
n
g
i
s
s
a
t
n
e
r
r
u
c
r
e
h
e
r
o
f
e
b
y
t
i
c
a
p
a
c
t
a
h
t
n
i
t
n
e
m
n
g
i
s
s
a

.
y
t
n
u
o
C
a
p
o
c
i
r
a
M
n
i
t
r
u
o
C
r
o
i
r
e
p
u
S
,
t
r
u
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
e
h
t

fe
oh
t
f
o
t
n
e
m
t
r
a
p
e
D

n
o
i
t
i
s
o
p
l
i
c
n
u
o
C
s
i
h
m
o
r
f
d
e
n
g
i
s
e
r
I
I
r
e
b
u
D
t
r
e
b
o
R
e
g
d
u
J

m
o
r
f
e
g
d
u
J
g
n
i
d
i
s
e
r
P

4
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C

t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

.
1
0
0
2
n
i
d
e
m
a
n
e
b
l
l
i
w
t
n
e
m
e
c
a
l
p
e
r
A
.
)
l
a
r
u
R
(
t
r
u
o
C
r
o
i
r
e
p
u
S
:
e
d
u
l
c
n
i
0
0
0
2
n
i
e
d
a
m
s
t
n
e
m
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
r
e
h
t
O
r
e
b
m
e
M
r
e
m
r
o
F

r
e
b
m
e
M
w
e
N

n
o
i
t
i
s
o
P

s
e
g
d
o
H
a
n
o
e
L

i
n
a
p
a
r
T
a
l
e
m
r
a
C

r
e
m
l
E
a
r
u
a
L

m
o
t
t
o
b
n
i
g
g
i
H
y
n
n
e
P

t
n
a
c
a
V

c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E
f
o
t
n
e
y
m
t
t
i
r
r
a
u
p
c
e
e
D
S

e
c
i
R
a
i
d
i
n
e
B

r
o
t
c
e
r
i
D
D
V
I
t
n
e
r
a
P
l
a
i
d
o
t
s
u
C
t
n
e
m
t
n
i
o
p
p
A
e
s
u
o
H
t
n
tm
e
n
e
t
r
n
a
i
P
o
p
lA
p
a
i
d
e
o
t
t
a
s
n
u
e
C
S

Work, Findings and Recommendations
The Council held five meetings during the year. At each
meeting, public comments were encouraged to assist the
Council’s efforts. Throughout the year, existing workgroups, in
addition to one newly formed sub-workgroup, continued to
meet and develop recommendations for improvement to the
child support enforcement system. Of particular note were the
efforts of a workgroup whose purpose was to implement
recently enacted federal legislation aimed at protecting victims
of domestic violence in the child support system.

5
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Tasks and Objectives
Listed below is a description of the major activities by
Council workgroups.

Centralized Payment Processing Workgroup
One workgroup of the Council continues to coordinate and
improve the process for centralized processing of support
payments
Historically, all court-ordered child support was paid
either directly to the person entitled to receive support (the
“obligee”) or, when ordered by the court, through the court
clerk. With the advent of mandated orders of assignment (or
“wage assignments”), fewer payments were made directly
between the parties. Instead, payments came to the court clerk
from the obligor’s employer or other payor. Receipting and
posting of support payments and distribution to the obligee was
performed by the court clerk in each of Arizona’s counties. With
the establishment of the joint federal-state IV-D Program,
responsibility for payment processing began to shift, depending
on case type. The IV-D program provides child support
enforcement services to public assistance recipients and others
upon request. Court clerks continued to receipt, post and
6
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

distribute payments in cases that were not serviced by the state.
A different system evolved for IV-D cases and payment
processing became bifurcated depending on case type.
Prompted by federal mandates, state legislation in 1985
required the IV-D agency to established a central clearinghouse
to “receive, disburse and monitor” support payments in IV-D
cases (46-441, Arizona Revised Statutes). A system was
developed to record payments on an automated statewide
computer system for processing through the support payment
clearinghouse. Still, payments continued to be made to a
Superior Court Clerk or to the clearinghouse, depending on the
specific county involved. Subsequent federal welfare reform
legislation directed states to effectuate centralized payment
processing in both IV-D and certain, but not all, non-IV-D
cases. Legislation was enacted in Arizona in 1997 (Laws 1997,
Chapter 219) consistent with the federal mandate. However, as
a result of the work of the Council, added to this legislation
were amendments to state law that authorized the support
payment clearinghouse to receive and disburse all monies

applicable to support or spousal maintenance on or before
October 1, 1999 (unless the court had specifically ordered
otherwise).
The

Council

workgroup

undertook

the

mission

of

7
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

implementing centralization of all child support and spousal
maintenance payments by December 1, 1998. Among the
substantial tasks involved was connecting the Superior Court
Clerks to the statewide child support database and converting
data in non-IV-D cases from the records of individual court
clerks to that database. Conversion involved loading information
in approximately 60,000 non-IV-D support cases into the
state database. On schedule, the “switch” was turned on and
centralized payment processing became a reality. With this bold
step, Arizona became one of the first states in the nation to
operate a centralized clearinghouse for the collection and
distribution of all child and spousal support.

The conversion benefitted many sectors. Families and
children

are

better

served

by

efficient

and

expeditious

processing of support payments and centralized record keeping.
Employers and other payers who deduct earnings or other
monies

pursuant

to

orders

of

assignment

now

forward

payments to one Arizona collection point, rather than to up to
sixteen different locations as under the previous system. State
taxpayers benefit from the cost savings and economies of scale
offered by a single collection entity. The integrity of the support
processing system itself is enhanced by reducing the incidence of
loss, errors or mismanagement.

8
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

In Fiscal Year 2000, over $253 million was collected and
processed through the support payment clearinghouse.
than $1 million was processed daily.

More

Misdirected payments

continue to be reduced and posting errors remain at less than
1% of the total payments posted.
Although

centralization

has

been

realized,

the

commitment and efforts of those involved in the process
continue.

Identified issues are being addressed expeditiously

through cooperative efforts of this collaborative, multi-agency
workgroup.

This successful collaboration will insure that

payments continue to be processed timely.

The success of this

workgroup was rewarded by the receipt of the Governor’s Spirit
of Excellence Award.

Throughout 2000, solutions were

coordinated by the Council workgroup with the cooperation of
all stakeholders, particularly the Clerks of the Superior Court,
the IV-D agency and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Child Support Guidelines Workgroup
This workgroup was formed upon the request of the AOC
to assist the Family Law Unit of the Court Services Division in its
review of the child support guidelines.
Section 25-230 of the Arizona Revised Statutes directs
9
1
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

the Supreme Court to”...establish guidelines for determining the
amount of child support.”

Additionally, the Supreme Court is

required to “...review the guidelines at least once every four
years

to

ensure

that

their

application

results

in

the

determination of appropriate child support amounts.”
Since the initial adoption in 1987, the guidelines have
been reviewed four times. The last review was conducted in
1995, and revised guidelines were adopted by the Supreme
Court on July 10, 1996, for actions filed after October 31,
1996.

Consistent with state and federal law, Arizona’s

guidelines were studied again in 1999 for implementation in
2000.
In past years, specialized committees have been appointed
to conduct the review process. Rather than establish a new
committee, the Council was asked to assist in the review.

The

Council appointed the Child Support Guidelines workgroup to fill
this role. The workgroup developed a set of proposals to aid the
Supreme Court in meeting its statutory obligation to ensure that
application of the guidelines results in the determination of
appropriate child support amounts.

Ultimately, all proposals

for change were reviewed by designated court committees,
including the Committee on Superior Court and the Arizona
Judicial Council, before submission for consideration by the
0
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, on September 28, 2000, unanimously

adopted the proposed changes to the guidelines proposed by the
workgroup with an effective date of January 1, 2001.

Although this workgroup was formed to specifically address

the 1999 guidelines review, the Council chose to continue the

workgroup as a standing committee so that public comment
about the new guidelines can be entertained through the next
Information gleaned from this process will help
four years.

form proposals for changes in 2003.

Financing Workgroup

e
h
t
f
o
e
c
i
f
f
O
e
h
t
f
o
t
s
e
u
q
e
r
e
h
t
n
o
p
u
d
e
m
r
o
f
s
a
w
p
u
o
r
g
k
r
o
w
s
i
h
T
e
h
t
h
c
i
h
w
y
b
d
o
h
t
e
m
e
h
t
s
a
w
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
d
i
s
n
o
c
r
e
d
n
U
.
l
a
r
e
n
e
G
r
o
t
i
d
u
A

.r
ee
rh
ut
t
e
u
h
fw
g
en
h
i
ty
nd
i
u
t
ds
ef
co
n
ay
nt
ii
f
l
i
eb
bi
s
dn
lo
up
os
h
e
sr
me
ah
r
gt
oh
rt
p
i
w
td
ne
eg
m
r
ea
ch
rc
o
fs
n
a
ew
tp
ru
oo
pr
p
g
uk
s
r
o
dw
l
ie
hh
cT
c
i
l
b
u
p
a
s
a
r
o
m
a
r
g
o
r.
ps
n
yo
r
i
e
t
va
oi
c
r
ep
ro
r
tp
s
p
o
ca
ah
g
su
ao
r
eh
u
nt
id
t
e
nd
on
cu
df
l
um
oa
h
r
sg
o
mr
ap
r
g
e
oc
ri
p
v
er
he
ts

g
n
i
d
n
u
f
l
a
r
u
t
c
u
r
t
s
e
h
t
d
e
i
d
u
t
s
p
u
o
r
g
e
h
t
,
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
e
h
t
f
o
t
r
a
p
s
A
e
m
o
c
n
i
e
h
t
d
n
a
a
n
o
z
i
r
A
n
i
d
e
d
n
u
f
s
i
m
a
r
g
o
r
p
D
V
I
e
h
t
w
o
h
f
o
s
e
u
s
s
i

s
t
i
t
h
g
u
o
r
b
p
u
o
r
g
e
h
T
.
a
n
o
z
i
r
A
n
i
s
e
s
a
c
D
V
I
n
i
s
e
i
t
r
a
p
f
o
s
l
e
v
e
l

n
o
i
t
p
o
d
a
l
a
n
i
f
h
t
i
w
0
0
0
2
,
h
c
r
a
M
n
i
l
i
c
n
u
o
C
e
h
t
o
t
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r

.
0
0
0
2
,
y
l
u
J
n
i

s
i
h
t
f
o
s
g
n
i
d
n
i
f
e
h
t
n
o
d
e
s
a
b
,
l
i
c
n
u
o
C
e
h
t
m
o
r
f
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
R

.
0
0
0
2
,
r
e
b
o
t
c
O
n
i
e
r
u
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
l
e
h
t
o
t
d
e
t
r
o
p
e
r
e
r
e
w
,
p
u
o
r
g
k
r
o
w

The

1
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C

t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Council reported that it had carefully reviewed the material
gathered by the Financing Workgroup and believe it is in the best
interest of the State of Arizona that a strong child support
enforcement program be maintained.

Continuation of the

improvements in performance that the child support program
has achieved in recent years, documented by the Auditor
General, should not be hindered by a systemic shortage of funds.
The Council further reported that the responsibility to
maintain a strong child support enforcement program should be
a general government responsibility borne by all Arizona
taxpayers and that it is ill-advised to seek the correction of the
funding shortfall through user fees.
The Council recommended that the Arizona Legislature
correct the funding shortfall in the Arizona IV-D Child Support
Enforcement Program through either appropriations or a
dedicated funding source; user fees should be avoided as a means
of correcting the shortfall.
Interestingly, the Arizona IV-D Child Support Enforcement
Program did not experience a shortfall in Fiscal Year 2000; in
fact, a small surplus was reported and a shortfall in Fiscal Year
2001 is not expected either.

However, in six Arizona counties,

the county provides child support services in place of the IV-D
2
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

hr
e
te
ih
w
w
ys
le
ps
ma
o
c
c
t
or
to
sp
yp
au
w
s
d
el
ni
ih
m
ac
xg
ea
ol
tf
s
se
at
w
a
t
ps
u
o
t
ra
gh
k
rt
og
wn
i
sr
ii
hu
t
q
fe
or
sw
ua
cl
o
l
fa
r
ee
hd
Te
f
w
e
n

o.
t
l
a
su
ed
vi
rv
e
i
sd
sn
ei
st
a
a
ch
et
sf
eo
h
n
to
i
nt
oa
m
gr
ao
lf
f
n
ai
c
gi
nh
i
p
c
a
ar
lg
P
o
m
e
.d
s
td
s
in
xa
e
s
s
ee
c
r
nd
e
ld
oa
i
e
vh
t
ct
i
tc
e
st
e
mo
or
dp
n
e
h
w
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
i
e
h
t
n
o
g
n
i
n
r
u
t
y
c
i
l
o
p
a
d
e
t
p
o
d
a
y
l
l
a
n
i
g
i
r
o
l
i
c
n
u
o
C
”

“

:
s
r
u
c
c
o
g
n
i
w
o
l
l
o
f
e
h
t
f
o
e
n
o

nn
ei
e
t
bi
sd
ae
hr
rc
e&
d
rh
Ot
gi
na
if
n
l
i
l
au
rf
t
sd
ee
Rd
r
yo
r
f
af
ra
o
pn
me
ee
T
b
rs
oa
nh
o
ir
to
c
a
en
t
o
oz
ri
P
r
fA
on
ri
e
d
de
ru
O
s
ns
ai
r
o
;
a
n
o
z
i
r
A

e
h
t
g
n
i
n
a
e
m
e
s
a
c
e
s
u
a
c
d
o
o
g
a
d
e
m
e
e
d
n
e
e
b
s
a
h
e
s
a
c
D
V
I
a

c
i
t
s
e
m
o
d
o
t
e
u
d
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
e
h
t
i
w
d
e
e
c
o
r
p
t
o
n
l
l
i
w
y
c
n
e
g
a
D
V
I
’

‘

．

ee
ch
n
et
l
,
on
io
V
i
t
a
yd
l
n
ie
m
m
am
Fo
c
ee
hr
t
r
si
ie
sh
a
bt
n
to
ap
h
wU
n
o.
n
o
d
e
n
r
u
t
d
e
n
i
m
a
x
e
t
s
r
i
f
p
u
o
r
g
e
h
T

e
b
d
l
u
o
w
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
I

．

Due to this recognition, the Council formed an
that trend.

Some counties have
Child Support Enforcement Program.

experienced a shortfall and expect all counties are likely to follow

ongoing Financing Workgroup to address broader issues related
to not only the IV-D Child Support Enforcement Program but
the counties also.

Non-Disclosure Indicator Workgroup

.
s
e
u
s
s
i
e
c
n
e
l
o
i
v

e
h
t
d
e
r
e
t
l
a
h
c
i
h
w
d
e
t
p
o
d
a
s
a
w
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r
d
r
i
h
t
A

e
c
n
e
l
o
i
V
y
l
i
m
a
F
m
o
r
f
s
e
s
a
c
e
s
e
h
t
o
t
r
e
f
e
r
o
t
d
e
s
u
y
g
o
l
o
n
i
m
r
e
t

s
a
w
e
g
n
a
h
c
e
h
t
f
o
t
n
e
t
n
i
e
h
T

.
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
I
e
r
u
s
o
l
c
s
i
D
n
o
N
o
t
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
I

a
n
o
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
i
e
h
t
f
o
t
n
e
m
e
c
a
l
p
t
a
h
t
n
r
e
c
n
o
c
l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
p
s
s
e
r
d
d
a
o
t

3
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C

t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

.
e
c
n
e
l
o
i
v
f
o
t
l
i
u
g
e
t
a
c
i
d
n
i
t
h
g
i
m
y
t
r
a
p

l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
d
e
s
o
p
o
r
p

:
s
r
u
c
c
o
g
n
i
w
o
l
l
o
f
e
h
t
f
o
e
n
o
n
e
h
w
r
o
t
a
c
i
d
n
i
e
h
t
n
o
g
n
i
n
r
u
t

y
a
w
r
e
d
n
u
s
i
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
s
e
v
n
i
e
s
u
a
c
d
o
o
g

t
r
o
p
p
u
s
d
l
i
h
c
D
V
I
r
o
f
t
n
a
c
i
l
p
p
a
n
a
y
b
r
o
f
d
e
i
l
p
p
a
n
e
e
b
s
a
h
t
a
h
t
a
e
m
i
t
f
o
d
o
i
r
e
p
e
h
t

”

d
n
a
g
n
i
t
e
e
m
d
e
u
n
i
t
n
o
c
p
u
o
r
g
e
h
T

y
c
i
l
o
p
l
a
n
o
i
t
i
d
d
a
n
a
d
e
t
p
o
d
a
l
i
c
n
u
o
C
e
h
T
.
0
0
0
2
n
i
s
n
o
i
t
a
d
n
e
m
m
o
c
e
r
;
s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
s
e
r
d
d
a
s
l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
i
n
a
f
o
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
p
d
e
r
e
d
r
o
s
a
h
t
r
u
o
c
e
h
t
r
e
d
r
O
n
a
t
o
n
s
i
t
a
h
t
g
n
i
r
a
e
h
a
n
i
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i
c
i
h
p
a
r
g
o
m
e
d
d
n
a
;
g
n
i
r
a
e
h
r
e
d
r
O
g
n
i
n
i
a
r
t
s
e
R
y
r
a
r
o
p
m
e
T
r
o
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P
f
o

g
n
i
n
i
a
r
t
s
e
R
y
r
a
r
o
p
m
e
T
r
o
n
o
i
t
c
e
t
o
r
P
f
o
r
e
d
r
O
r
o
f
n
o
i
t
i
t
e
p
a

．

’

．

“

．

t
u
b
d
e
l
i
f
n
e
e
b
s
a
h
r
e
d
r
O

has not been granted.

ly
a
r
u
t
t
s
ri
i
g
ve
r
ae
s
ta
e
sc
e
yt
c
na
et
gs
A
e
th
rt
o
n
pi
pn
ue
S
r
d
dl
li
i
hh
Cc
d
Dn
Va
Is
t
en
he
tr
a
,p
0
0l
0a
2
i
d
,o
rt
es
b
u
oc
tl
c
l
Oa
nn
Io
g
a
l
f
s.
i
w
h
a
Tl
l
a
.r
y
e
rd
te
s
if
ge
eh
r
t
ey
s
ab
cd
te
rs
o
o
pp
pm
u
i
ss
de
lm
ia
h
r
cf
le
am
r
ei
dt
ee
f
h
et
h
h
tt
hi
tw
iy
w
l
sp
em
co
a
fc
ro
et
t
e
nn
io
hd
c
is
ha
ww

s
e
s
a
c
e
s
o
h
t
t
u
b
l
l
a
m
o
r
f
d
e
t
f
i
l
e
b
l
l
i
w
g
a
l
f
l
a
u
t
r
i
v
e
h
t
,
y
l
l
a
u
t
n
e
v
E
.
l
i
c
n
u
o
C
e
h
t
y
b
d
e
t
p
o
d
a
a
i
r
e
t
i
r
c
e
h
t
t
e
e
m
t
a
h
t

fr
i
oe
nh
ot
i
s
io
vt
is
D
e
g
en
ha
th
hc
te
i
s
we
h
gt
n
ie
tt
aa
r
t
o
i
bl
ai
l
lc
oa
cf
eo
ut
n
i
t
te
n
nm
oe
c
c
r
lo
lf
in
w
E
pt
u
r
oo
r
gp
p
eu
hS
T
d
l
i
h
C
o
t
e
v
r
e
s
l
l
i
w
s
g
n
i
r
e
h
t
a
g
e
r
u
t
u
F
.
m
e
t
s
y
s
t
r
o
p
p
u
s
d
l
i
h
c
d
e
t
a
m
o
t
u
a

s
a
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m
i
f
o
s
d
o
h
t
e
m
y
f
i
t
n
e
d
i
d
n
a
s
s
e
c
o
r
p
e
h
t
e
n
i
l
m
a
e
r
t
s

.
d
e
d
e
e
n

4
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C

t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Relocation Issues Workgroup
This workgroup was formed in 2000 to address issues
related to increased transportation costs for the noncustodial
parent when the custodial parent and child(ren) move a great
distance to a new physical location.

Although the group did

not meet in 2000, it will meet in January, 2001.

Review of Child Support Statutes Workgroup
This workgroup has functioned since 1997 to examine
particular statutes related to child support enforcement to
identify

inconsistencies,

lack

of

clarity,

or

unnecessary

duplication and to recommend improvements. Again this year,
the workgroup developed proposals for legislative change. Please
see

the

following

section

titled

“Recommendations

for

Legislative Action” for additional details about legislation
enacted in 2000 and proposed for 2001.

Recommendations for Legislative Action

5
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

The product of various subcommittee workgroups resulted
in an omnibus legislative proposal being recommended for
passage during the Second Regular Session of the Forty-fourth
Legislature in 2000. Introduced as Senate Bill 1348 under
sponsorship of Council co-chair Senator David Petersen, the
proposals were adopted as Laws 2000, Chapter 312, which
added A.R.S. § 25-320.01.
The

primary

establishing

the

element
Child

codifies

Support

earlier

session

Coordinating

law

Council

Subcommittee and the Domestic Relations Reform Study
Subcommittee into permanent statute and continues these
groups until the end of 2007.
Also, included in the legislation are provisions that:
·

Further the centralized processing of child support
and spousal maintenance payments by transferring
authority to receive payment processing fees from the
clerks of court to the support payment clearinghouse
and prioritizing the order in which those fees are
deducted from payments made to the clearinghouse.

·

Allow the court to suspend interest on child support judgments
issued under Title 25, if the requesting party is incarcerated or
6
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

incapacitated.
·
·

Provide that judicial reviews of administrative decisions under
A.R.S. § 25-522 shall be tied to the court and not to a jury.
Clarify that workman’s compensation benefits are
eligible for assignment for payment of child support
and spousal maintenance.

During 2000, a workgroup appointed to recommend
improvements to existing child support statutes developed
proposals for introduction to the Legislature in 2001. Based on
these efforts, the Council has proposed amendments that clarify
that only “future” interest may be suspended on child support
judgments for incapacitated or incarcerated payors, clarify the
procedure

for

obtaining

a

judgment

for

child

support

arrearages, delete obsolete statutes, add a new procedure for
intrastate transfer of child support cases from one county to
the county where the child resides and make necessary technical
corrections in child support statutes.

Other Issues Before the Council
e
h
t
e
v
o
r
p
m
i
o
t
s
d
o
h
t
e
m
y
f
i
t
n
e
d
i
o
t.
m
ee
u
t
n
s
iy
ts
n
ot
cn
e
sm
p
e
u
c
or
ro
g
kf
rn
oe
w
t
lr
io
cp
n
up
ou
Cs
d
l
i
h
c
7
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Throughout

the

year,

the

Council

maintained

its

knowledge of issues related to child support enforcement by
inviting presentations on relevant topics.

Terry Martin, Office

of the Attorney General, was invited to speak to the group on
privacy issues in terms of child support enforcement.

With the

advent of the Internet, private citizens have increased access to
monitor the functioning of courts and government.

Concerns

and issues with data on the Internet include identity theft,
forgeries due to the ability to copy imaged signatures, ease of
locating people and people profiling by marketers.

Future Actions
The Council is committed to the continued development of
mechanisms and procedures to enhance the delivery of child
support services to the families and children of Arizona.
Workgroups will continue to explore issues currently under
discussion and endeavor to increase public awareness of child
support issues.

Implementation of the non disclosure indicator

goes forward with cooperation among all system participants.
As chartered, the Council will maintain its important role in
providing a forum for cooperative decision making and cohesive
8
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

policy development among all interested stakeholders in the
child support enforcement system.

9
2
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM
STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE
2000
Summary
In the year 2000, the Domestic Relations Reform Study
Subcommittee (“Subcommittee”) revitalized and refocused. The
Subcommittee did not meet during the second regular session of
the forty-fourth Legislature (spring, 2000).

No meetings

were held until September 20, 2000, largely due to efforts on
the

part

of

various

Subcommittee.

individuals

to

put

an

end

to

the

However, due to the statutory, rather than

session law creation of the committee and two subcommittees
in A.R.S. § 25-320.01 by the Legislature, the DR Subcommittee
was given new life and new interest rekindled.
Under

the

leadership

of

Legislative

Co-chair

Representative Karen Johnson, membership vacancies were
addressed, meetings were held and the workgroups continued
to

meet

to

establish

future

goals

to

develop

specific

recommendations for reform of the domestic relations system.
The Subcommittee held four public meetings during the year,
0
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

three of the Subcommittee itself and one joint meeting with the
Child Support Coordinating Council, as required by the new
statute.

Recommendations were advanced to the Legislature

for enactment in 2001, and a renewed foundation was laid for
accomplishment of long-term objectives designed to improve
domestic relations laws and procedures in the best interests of
families and children.

Amendments are proposed which

change the term “visitation” for “parenting time” in the family
statutes

and

the

Subcommittee

is

studying

a

form

of

presumption for joint legal custody.

Membership
Rep. Karen Johnson, co-chair, attempted to fill the
non-legislative open member positions during the fall, 2000.
Member appointments must be made jointly by the two
co-chairs, with the joint approval of the speaker of the House of
Representatives and the president of the Senate.

Rep. Johnson

has been reviewing the applications of many persons interested
in serving on the Subcommittee.
At the end of 2000, there were nine vacancies in the
Subcommittee membership. The open positions designated by
statute are for a domestic relations mediator, a custodial
parent, a parent and a non-custodial parent. These positions
1
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

opened due to the resignations during the year of Russell
Schoeneman (mediator), Kathy Tolman (non-custodial parent),
Diane Kerns (parent) and Corrine Harper (custodial parent).
During the year, the four other positions created by the new
statute became available: conciliation court representative,
faith-based

organization

representative,

domestic

violence

coalition representative and marriage and family therapist. All
nonlegislative members of the Subcommittee are appointed by
the co-chairs with the approval of Legislative Leadership.

In

addition, Senator Ann Day’s position as co-chair is now open,
as she did not renew her bid for a Senate position in the recent
election.

Work, Findings and Recommendations of the Subcommittee
The DR Subcommittee is specifically charged in its enabling
legislation (A.R.S. § 25-320.01) to recommend changes to
reform the state's domestic relations statutes.
Four meetings of the Subcommittee were held during
2000: on September 20, September 27 (joint meeting with
Council), October 11, and December 13. A fourth meeting
scheduled in November was canceled when legislative members
were called into a special session.
2
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

In the first part of the year, opportunities for the
Subcommittee to meet were limited by the busy pace of the
legislative session.

The forty-fourth Legislative session (second

session) did not adjourn until April 18, 2000.

Meetings were

further hindered by the uncertain status of the Subcommittee’s
existence until passage of new enabling legislation (new A.R.S. §
25-320.01) effective July 18, 2000.

However, two of the

three workgroups of the Subcommittee continued to meet all
year (Substantive Law and Court Procedures) and were
prepared to open topics of discussion and consideration in the
September 20, 2000 meeting.

In September, 2000 the

Subcommittee decided to continue to meet in spite of Rep.
Johnson’s inability to make appointments to the non-legislative
positions.
The DR Subcommittee has recommended, after study by
the

Substantive

Law

workgroup,

replacing

the

term

“visitation” with the term “parenting time” in all Arizona
family statutes for consideration by the Legislature in 2001.
The DR Subcommittee has also been studying a possible
recommendation to adopt presumptions of joint custody, both
legal and physical, with a presumption of equal parenting time
periods for both parents.

The DR Subcommittee agreed on
3
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

recommending the proposal to the Legislature regarding the
change in terminology from “visitation” to “parenting time” to
eliminate the feeling of many parents that they are a “visitor”
instead of a parent.
At meetings on September 20, October 11 and December
13, members developed and discussed many additional topics
for study and possible reform.

The DR Subcommittee has

voted to recommend passage of proposed A.R.C.P. Rule 53.1
regarding the use of special family law masters.

The Court

Procedures workgroup is undertaking a new study of the
effectiveness of dedicated family law benches rather than the
rotating bench approach and Judge Mark Armstrong has given
a presentation for statewide study regarding the Integrated
Family Court concept being developed in the Maricopa County
Superior Court.

The DR Subcommittee voted to have monthly

meetings in order to progress in its work and has scheduled the
meetings monthly during the 2001 Legislative session from
4-6 p.m. in order to facilitate the attendance of legislator
members.

4
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

Future Actions
The Subcommittee will continue to pursue a strategy for
accomplishing the long-term goal of reforming domestic
relations laws and procedures. The impact of domestic relations
matters on families and children demands that resolution
systems operate fairly, efficiently and as family-friendly as
practicable. Rejuvenated with the new enabling legislation and
promise of continued existence until 2007, existing members of
the Subcommittee are eagerly awaiting the infusion of new
members in January, 2001 and a new co-chair from the
Senate.

The DR Subcommittee is poised for creative action

toward meaningful solutions. As always, the Subcommittee also
stands prepared to serve as a clearinghouse for new ideas and
proposals and to provide advice to the Legislature in order that
system changes are developed in a coherent manner.
The

first

joint

meeting

with

the

Child

Support

Coordinating Council was held on September 27, 2000.
Member attendance and public interest were impressive.

The

workgroup chairs of both subcommittees gave reports of the
work and study projects of their respective workgroups.

The

combined membership also engaged in strategic planning and
developed several topics for future study and focus.

5
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C
t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

6
3
e
g
a
P

e
e
t
t
i
m
m
o
C
m
r
o
f
e
R
s
n
o
i
t
a
l
e
R
c
i
t
s
e
m
o
D
d
n
a
t
n
e
m
e
c
r
o
f
n
E
t
r
o
p
p
u
S
d
l
i
h
C

t
r
o
p
e
R
l
a
u
n
n
A
0
0
0
2

APPENDIX TO
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND
DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM
COMMITTEE
2000 ANNUAL REPORT

CHILD SUPPORT
COORDINATING COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE
Purpose
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-320.01, the Child Support
Coordinating Council Subcommittee was formed to:

•

Coordinate

and

review

plans

of

various

government agencies.
•

Make recommendations regarding child support
enforcement and related issues to the Child
Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations
Reform Committee.

•

Develop a plan to implement a statewide parent
education

program.

(With

successful

implementation of this program effective in
1997, the mandate to develop a program was
stricken from session law by Laws 1997,
Chapter 176.)

i

Membership
Membership consists of the following members or their
designees who have knowledge of or experience in, child support
enforcement and related issues:
•

The Director of the Department of Economic
Security.

•

The Assistant Director of the Division of Child
Support Enforcement of the Department of
Economic Security.

•

A Division or Section Chief from the Office of the
Attorney General who is appointed by the
Attorney General.

•

The Director of the Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Office of the Courts.

•

Two

Presiding

Judges

from

the

domestic

relations department of the superior court who
are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Arizona
Supreme Court; one judge from an urban
county, and one judge from a rural county.
•

A

title

IV-D

Court

Commissioner

who

is

appointed by the Chief Justice of the Arizona
Supreme Court.
•

A Clerk of the Superior Court who is appointed
by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme
ii

Court.
•

Two County Attorneys who are appointed by
the Director of the Department of Economic
Security

from

a

county

that

is

currently

contracting with the state to provide child
support

enforcement

services;

one

County

Attorney from an urban county and one County
Attorney from a rural county.
•

An Executive Assistant from the Office of the
Governor who is appointed by the Governor.

•

One person knowledgeable in child support issues
who is a noncustodial parent and one person
knowledgeable in child support issues who is a
custodial parent, who are appointed by the
President of the Senate.

•

One person knowledgeable in child support issues
who is a noncustodial parent and one person
knowledgeable in child support issues who is a
custodial parent, who are appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

•

One parent knowledgeable in child support
issues who has joint custody who is appointed
jointly by the President of the Senate and the
iii

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
One person from the Executive Committee of

•

the Family Law Section of the State Bar of
Arizona who is appointed by the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court.
One person from the business community who is

•

appointed jointly by the President of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Two members of the Senate from different

•

political parties.
Two members of the House of Representatives

•

from different political parties.
The President of the Senate shall appoint the two Senate
members

and

designate

one

of

the

members

as

the

co-chairperson. The Speaker of the House of Representatives
shall appoint the two House of Representatives members and
designate one of the members as the co-chairperson. Each
co-chairperson may appoint additional members to the Child
Coordinating

Council

to

serve

as

.
m
e
h
t
d
e
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
o
h
w
s
l
a
i
c
i
f
f
o
r
o
l
a
i
c
i
f
f
o
e
h
t
f
o
e
r
u
s
a
e
l
p
e
h
t
t
a

non-voting technical experts.

Subcommittee

s
m
r
e
t
r
a
e
y
o
w
t
e
v
r
e
s
l
l
a
h
s
s
r
e
b
m
e
M

Support

d
n
a
r
a
e
y
l
a
c
s
i
f
n
e
v
e
h
c
a
e
f
o
t
r
a
t
s
e
h
t
t
a
e
d
a
m
e
b
l
l
a
h
s
s
t
n
e
m
t
n
i
o
p
p
A
.
d
e
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
e
r
e
b
y
a
m
s
r
e
b
m
e
m
iv

Reports of the Council’s work are required to be submitted
quarterly to the Child Support Enforcement and Domestic
Relations Reform Committee.

v

E
E
T
T
I
M
M
O
C
B
U
S
L
I
C
N
U
O
C
G
N
I
T
A
N
I
D
R
O
O
C
T
R
O
P
P
U
S
D
L
I
H
C
s
r
e
b
m
e
M
f
o
t
s
i
L

k
e
r
e
p
a
n
K
a
r
u
a
L
e
v
i
t
a
t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
R
:
s
r
i
a
h
c
o
C
n
e
s
r
e
t
e
P
d
i
v
a
D
r
o
t
a
n
e
S

t
r
su
eo
nC
ar
eo
Ji
ry
le
t
e
apn
huu
cSo
ieC
Mh
a
p
eto
l
c
bfi
aor
rka
or
M
ne
ol
n
HC
i

e
r
r
ie
ut
ga
An
ae
dS
ne
it
La
t
eS
l
ba
an
ro
oz
ni
or
HA

t
n
e
r
a
P
nl
oa
ti
rd
o
o
Nt
s
du
ic
vn
ao
DN

t
n
ae
ytc
esi
lif
ksf
csO
eAs
Be'
v
r
.i
o
Rt
n
ue
r
ic
de
v
ox
o
JE
G

e
h
t
f
o
r
o
t
c
e
r
i
D
se
rv
ei
yt
Ba
r
.t
Ks
is
dn
t
ii
r
vm
u
ad
o
D AC

n
o
ki
ut
p
ac
te
sS
Ow
e
.ae
RLt
t
yi
dl
ii
m
vm
m
aa
o
DF
C
ere
l
v
bai
aBt
reu
ot
c
na
e
ot
x
HS
E

e
s
o
R
e
D
g
yn
ri
rd
ei
Jv
s
oe
rr
c
oP
i
f
v
yr
se
e
rn
S
er
bo
t
mt
n
at
e
h
m
CAe
yc
nt
r
an
o
yu
f
ro
n
BC
E

p
p
e
R
.
L
r
ae
dn
no
oi
hs
Rs
i
em
l
bm
ao
rC
oD
noV
HI

s
e
v
i
t
a
t
n
e
s
se
or
ip
Re
aR
c
cf
eo
be
es
Ru
o
eH
l
ba
an
ro
oz
ni
or
HA
)
l
a
r
u
R
I(
I
e
rg
ed
bu
uJ
Ds
n
to
ri
et
ba
ol
Re
eR
l
c
bi
at
rs
oe
nm
oo
HD

e
v
i
t
a
t
n
e
s
ye
er
lp
pe
iR
h
s
Ss
e
kn
ci
us
hu
CB

pl
ra
ar
he
Sn
ne
eG
ey
re
on
Nr
o
rt
o
t
fA
e
ie
ph
st
ef
l
lo
ie
Gc
i
mf
if
KO

t
n
e
r
na
oP
dy
ld
oo
mt
Ss
lu
lC
et
sn
si
uo
RJ

t
n
e
r
a
eP
nl
ea
ei
rd
G
o
t
ds
au
rc
nn
oo
CN

it
nn
ae
pr
aa
rP
Tl
a
ai
ld
eo
mt
rs
au
CC

s)
kn
ca
ib
Hr
U
.(
G
e
hg
td
eu
BJ
eg
l
n
bi
ad
ri
os
ne
or
HP

l
l
a
W
a
L
ag
rn
a
bi
rd
ais
v
Bo
e
c
rri
oPv
f
yr
see
anS
lrt
eon
rte
atm
A
V
e
ayc
ct
r
nn
o
auf
ion
BCE

m
o
t
tt
on
be
nr
ia
gP
gl
i
a
Hi
d
yo
nt
ns
eu
PC

vi

y
t
i
r
ru
oc
e
tS
c
e
rc
i
im
D
o
tn
o
rc
o
E
p
p
euf
cSo
idt
Rl
n
e
aim
iht
dCr
iDa
n-p
eVe
BID

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
S
c
i
m
o
n
o
c
E
n f
o o
t t
y n
a
rm
e
lo
Ct
t
r
ca
ne
hrp
oie
JDD

DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM

STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE
e
s
o
p
r
u
P
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-320.01, the Domestic Relations
Reform Study Subcommittee was formed to:

•

Recommend changes to the domestic relations
statutes, rules and procedures and other related
issues

each

year

in

a

phased-in

approach

designed to lead to a reform of the state's
domestic relations statutes.
•

Clarify the rights of grandparents in domestic
relations issues.

·

Report

to

the

child

support

enforcement

domestic relations reform Committee quarterly.
p
i
h
s
r
e
b
m
e
M
The Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee
consists of the following members:
•

Two

noncustodial

parents

knowledgeable

in

domestic relations issues who are not judges or
commissioners.
vii

•

Two

custodial

parents

knowledgeable

in

domestic relations issues who are not judges or
commissioners.
•

Two parents who have joint custody who are
knowledgeable in domestic relations issues who
are not judges or commissioners.

•

Two

parents

relations

knowledgeable

issues

who

are

in

not

domestic
judges

or

commissioners.
•

One active or retired judge or commissioner
from the domestic relations department of the
superior court.

•

One domestic relations attorney.

•

One Clerk of the Court.

•

A professional domestic relations mediator.

•

A psychologist experienced in performing child
custody evaluations.

•

A domestic relations educator experienced in
matters relating to parenting or divorce classes.

·

A

representative

of

a

statewide

domestic

violence coalition.
·

A representative of a conciliation court.

•

A marriage and family therapist who is

viii

knowledgeable in domestic relations issues.
·

A

representative

from

a

faith-based

organization who is knowledgeable in domestic
relations issues.
•

An Administrative Officer of the Supreme Court.

•

Three members of the Senate, not more than
two of whom are from the same political party.
The president of the Senate shall

appoint the

members and designate one of the members as
the co-chairperson.
Three members of the House of Representatives,

•

not more than two of whom are from the same
political party.

The speaker of the House of

Representatives shall appoint the members and
designate

one

of

the

members

as

the

co-chairperson.
The President of the Senate shall appoint the three Senate
members

and

co-chairperson.

designate

one

of

the

members

as

the

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

shall appoint the three House of Representatives members and
one

of

the

members

as

the

co-chairperson.

e
h
t
h
t
i
w
s
r
i
a
h
c
o
c
e
h
t
y
b
d
e
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
e
r
a
s
r
e
b
m
e
m
e
v
i
t
a
l
s
i
g
e
l
n
o
N

designate

e
s
u
o
H
e
h
t
f
o
r
e
k
a
e
p
S
e
h
t
d
n
a
e
t
a
n
e
S
e
h
t
f
o
t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r
P
e
h
t
f
o
l
a
v
o
r
p
p
a
ix

e
h
t
t
a
s
m
r
e
t
r
a
e
y
o
w
t
e
v
r
e
s
l
l
a
h
s
s
r
e
b
m
e
M
.
s
e
v
i
t
a
t
n
e
s
e
r
p
e
R
f
o

d
.n
ma
e
hr
t
a
e
dy
el
ta
n
c
is
o
pi
pf
an
e
v
oe
hh
w
c
a
se
lf
ao
i
ct
i
r
fa
ft
os
e
rh
o
t
t
la
ae
id
c
a
im
f
fe
ob
l
el
h
a
t
h
s
s
ft
on
e
et
m
r
un
so
i
a
ep
lp
pA
.
d
e
t
n
i
o
p
p
a
e
r
e
b
y
a
m
s
r
e
b
m
e
m

Reports of the Subcommittee's proposals for change are
required to be submitted quarterly to the Child Support
Enforcement and Domestic Relations Reform Committee.

x

DOMESTIC RELATIONS REFORM STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE
Members
Co-chairs:

Representative Karen Johnson
Senate Position Vacant
Custodial Parent

Honorable Mark Anderson
Arizona House of
Representatives
Honorable Mark Armstrong
Parent
Alice L. Bendheim
Domestic Relations
Attorney

Terrill J. Haugen
Noncustodial Parent
Honorable Alma Jennings
Haught, by Kimerlee
Johnson,
Clerk of the Court

Beverley Boyd
Administrative Officer of
the Supreme Court

Vacant
Parent
Honorable David Petersen
Arizona State Senate

Sanford Braver, Ph.D.
Domestic Relations
Educator

Honorable John M. Quigley
Domestic Relations Judge

Honorable Jack Brown
Arizona State Senate

Vacant
Domestic Relations
Mediator

Honorable Kathi Foster
Arizona House of
Representatives

Ellen Seaborne
Custodial Parent

Vacant
xi

Vacant
Noncustodial Parent
Debborah Woods-Schmitt
Parent with Joint Custody
Brian W. Yee, Ph.D.
Psychologist with Child
Custody
Evaluation Experience
Jeffrey C. Zimmerman
Parent with Joint Custody
Vacant
Representative of a
statewide domestic violence
coalition
Vacant

Representative of
Conciliation court
Vacant
Representative of a
faith-based organization
who is knowledgeable
in domestic relations issues
Vacant
Marriage and family
therapist who is
knowledgeable in domestic
relations issues

Prepared by Committee Staff:
Family Law Unit, Court Services Division
Administrative Office of the Courts
Arizona Supreme Court
1501 West Washington, Suite 411
Phoenix, Arizona

85007