By Hoodline
The legal landscape of family law in Arizona has seen a significant alteration as the state’s supreme court has implemented emergency amendments to the rules that govern a party’s ability to change judges. This action comes on the heels of a recent Court of Appeals decision, which has prompted a reevaluation of longstanding judicial assignment procedures in divorce and child custody cases.
Specifically, the case of Sobrino v. Fisk, which was decided on November 26, 2024, cast a new light on rules that previously seemed clear-cut. The appellate court’s interpretation suggested that the existing rules permitted either party in a family law matter to request a new judge every time a new action, such as a petition for modification or other relief, was filed following the issuance of a dissolution decree, according to the Arizona Supreme Court. This expansive interpretation contradicted the former understanding of Family Law Rule 6(a), which historically granted each party only one automatic change of judge in the span of a case.
In response to this legal quandary, the Arizona Supreme Court has acted swiftly to amend the Rules of Family Law Procedure, realigning them with the original intent. As laid out in the amendments, each party will now be limited to a single notice of change of judge as a matter of right, applicable before and after a dissolution decree is entered. This revision intends to close the door on what could have been an endless cycle of judge shopping, which may have prolonged legal proceedings and disrupted the court calendar.
“The recent amendment to Rule 6(a), Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure, ensures that a returning family law litigant will not be able to change their former judge every single time they file a new petition (like for modification or contempt), unless they can establish cause under Rule 6.1. There are certainly some benefits to this, including consistent and efficient case management across the lifetime of a family law case. For instance, a judge will likely remember the parties’ dynamic, the needs of the children, and other key issues to assist him or her in determining ongoing disputes, which saves time and judicial resources. A downside to the amendment is that a judge may impose his or her previously held beliefs on an entirely new issue that differs dramatically from the issues before. By not seeing the new matter with fresh eyes, a judge may disfavor arguments or evidence that would have affected the outcome of the case under a new judge. Judges are, after all, human. Still, such a downside is largely speculative while the benefit of preserving judicial resources cannot be disputed.”
–Ashley Hutton, family law attorney at Rose Law Group
