Annual report / Domestic Relations Committee

              DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As required by Arizona law (A.R.S. � 25-323.02), the Domestic Relations Committee, jointly chaired by Senator Mark Anderson and Representative Karen Johnson, 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. The new law creating the Domestic Relations Committee ("Committee") became effective on August 22, 2002. The Committee actively continued the work of its predecessor, the Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee (DR Subcommittee) throughout 2003, to explore concepts for improving the domestic relations system and Arizona's domestic relations statutes. The group maintained an aggressive pace meeting ten times in 2003. Senator Mark Anderson and Representative Karen Johnson, Committee co-chairs, led the group toward the goals outlined by the previous year's strategic planning agenda and the mandate set forth in Laws 2002, Chapter 332. Three existing workgroups continued to develop ideas and evaluate recommendations for future change through the Legislatures and the courts. The Committee, following in the footsteps of the original DR Subcommittee, was conceived as a forum to broadly explore, identify problems in and develop reforms for the state's domestic relations statutes. Continuing the previous focus and goals of the DR Subcommittee evidenced the wisdom and importance of forging collaborative solutions. The three existing workgroups (Education/Prevention, Substantive Law and Court Procedures) continued to focus on specific issues developed through strategic planning and from information gleaned from research, Committee members, workgroup members, invited speakers and members of the public.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 1



The work of the Committee's workgroups has produced legislative recommendations for 2004 as well as input to legislators not sitting on the Committee who have drafted legislative proposals relating to family law for introduction to the Legislature in 2004.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 2



DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT

INTRODUCTION

Historical Background Session law establishing the original 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, cochaired 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. The Technical Advisory Committee brought together major stakeholders in the statewide child support arena. Membership represented a cross section of program administrators, parents, judicial officers and 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, of which 28 required legislative action. At the conclusion of its mission, the Committee submitted a report of its recommendations dated November 1, 1993.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 3



In the course of deliberations, there was consensus that integrated planning and communication among all of the child support and domestic relations 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 ongoing communication and integrated planning among stakeholders to ensure consistency in child support policies. The Technical Advisory Committee also identified a problem concerning the difficulty in understanding laws and procedures due to the lack of integration of the statutes relating to domestic relations issues. To address this problem, the Technical Advisory Committee recommended that a domestic relations reform study committee be established to consolidate, revise and modernize Arizona's 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 overarching legislative committee called the Child Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations Reform Committee. The Child Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations Reform Committee consisted of the four co-chairs from the two subordinate subcommittees. This overarching committee was established to coordinate the work of the subcommittees, but was specifically directed not to make substantive changes to the work, findings or recommendations of the two subcommittees. Any conflicts between the findings or recommendations of the subcommittees were to be referred back to the subcommittees for resolution. Each of the subcommittees was 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

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 4



tasks to be undertaken. Reports were to be submitted by the subcommittees quarterly to the Child Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations Reform Committee. The overarching committee was 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 overarching 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 ("AOC") to provide that staff support. The legislation that originally established the overarching 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 continued to serve the public until December 31, 2000. New legislation (Laws 2000, Chapter 312) repealed Laws 1994, Chapter 374, Section 24 and added A.R.S. � 25320.01 to statute. This statute, effective as of July 18, 2000, created the committee and subcommittees by statute, rather than session law, and extended the life of the committee and the two subcommittees until July 1, 2007. The statute further specified that the Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee was to meet jointly with the Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee at least twice each year. Legislation passed in 2002 (Laws 2002, Chapter 332) eliminated the Child Support Enforcement and Domestic Relations Reform Committee, the Child Support Coordinating Council Subcommittee and Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee. The new law created a new structure and two independent committees, the Child Support Committee and the Domestic Relations Committee ("Committee"), with simplified purposes, appointments and reporting requirements and provides that the two committees will expire on January 1, 2008. The Court Services Division, Court Programs Unit, AOC, is still responsible for staffing the committees created by this new legislation.

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 5



The new statute, A.R.S. � 25-323.01, effective August 22, 2002, directed the Committee to prepare a statewide plan for an integrated family court with comprehensive subject matter jurisdiction over all matters involving the family and submit this plan to the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on or before December 31, 2002. The law further requires the Committee to prepare an annual report regarding the Committee's recommended changes to the domestic relations statutes, rules and procedures and other related issues designed to lead to a reform of the state's domestic relations statutes. The Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court are to receive copies of the report. This report reflects the Domestic Relations Committee's work, findings and recommendations for the year 2003. 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 DR Subcommittee. Under the original law, the only legislative members of the DR Subcommittee 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 in 1995. Co-chairperson positions were unaffected. In 1997, the Legislature also added additional requirements of membership. An amendment (Laws 1997, Chapter 173) to the original enabling law (Laws 1994, chapter 374, section 24) provided that members of each

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 6



subcommittee shall serve two-year terms at the pleasure of the official or officials who appointed them. Additionally, the law specified that the appointments shall be made at the start of each even fiscal year and that members may be re-appointed. The new law enacted in 2002 that created the Domestic Relations Committee further altered its membership composition and the method by which members are appointed. Three new positions were added that were not on the DR Subcommittee and include a: 1) law enforcement representative, 2) children's advocacy representative, and 3) representative from the family law section of the State Bar of Arizona. Also, a second active or retired judge or commissioner from the domestic relations department of the Superior Court was added and specified that one of the two should be from an urban county and one from a rural county. The statute eliminated a two-year term limit; members now serve at the pleasure of the appointing official, at least through the termination of the committees on January 1, 2008. Appointments are now made by the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 7



DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE 2003

Summary In 2003, the importance of the Domestic Relations Committee as a recognized forum for cooperative decision making in the area of domestic relations was reaffirmed. Under the leadership of Senator Mark Anderson and Representative Karen Johnson, the Committee and its workgroups developed ideas intended to continue the mandate to reform the state's domestic relations. Several workgroups continued to study and suggest recommendations for the revision of domestic relations laws throughout the year. Over the years, the Committee contributed to and developed legislation to improve laws that refine the long-distance relocation statute and a separate amendment that refines the statute concerning the commencement of a child custody action, and clarify a statute concerning filing a petition for grandparent visitation in an underlying order. Through the activities of the Substantive Law workgroup, a recommendation for legislation revising the manner in which child custody decisions are reached was developed for introduction in 2004. The Committee did not will vote on the final proposal in January 2004 and upon passage will be introduced for legislation by Committee co-chairs. Membership The session law originally establishing Domestic Relations Reform Study Subcommittee (Laws 1994, Chapter 374, Section 24) prescribed the membership composition of the DR Subcommittee by title or category and directed how and by whom each would be appointed. The new law enacted in 2002 that eliminated the DR Subcommittee and created the Committee altered the membership composition and expanded the individual making appointments. Three new positions were added including representatives from a law enforcement agency, a child advocacy agency and the family law

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 8



section of the State Bar of Arizona. A second active or retired judge or commissioner from the domestic relations department of the superior court was added and the law specified that one of the two judges or commissioners should be from an urban county and one from a rural county. The statute eliminated a two-year term limit; members now serve at the pleasure of the appointing official, at least through the termination of the committees on January 1, 2008. Appointments are now made by the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Two thousand and three saw a turnover in Committee membership for a variety of reasons. Upon expiration of her term in the Senate, Senator Mary Hartley, who served as Committee co-chair since 2001, met with the Committee for the last time in December 2002. Senate President Ken Bennett appointed Senator Mark Anderson to assume the position of Senate co-chair. Also resulting from the expiration of his term in the Senate, long-time member Senator David Petersen attended his last meeting in late 2002. Senate President Ken Bennett appointed Senator Bill Brotherton to serve in the position of Senate member. Ms. Beverly Frame, Clerk of the Superior Court in Yuma County, was appointed by Chief Justice Charles Jones to serve as the clerk of court member. She replaced Ms. Alma Jennings Haught, who did not stand for reelection to her county office. Senate President Ken Bennett chose Bill Hart of the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence to replace Daniella Yaloz, domestic violence coalition representative member. Ms. Yaloz resigned from the Committee in April to pursue her education. Governor Janet Napolitano chose Dr. Bill Fabricius to serve as a parent member. Dr. Fabricius replaced outgoing member, Gordon Gunnell.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 9



Dr. Rene Bartos, custodial parent member, left the Committee to attend to increased job responsibilities. The position remained vacant at the close of 2003. Work, Findings and Recommendations The Committee is specifically charged in its enabling legislation (Laws 2002, Chapter 332) to recommend changes to the domestic relations statutes, rules and procedures and other related issued designed to lead to a reform of the state's domestic relations statutes. Pursuing an aggressive schedule, the Committee met ten times in 2003. Efforts to encourage increased participation from the public resulted in the addition of more opportunity for public comment at each meeting. Previously, public comment was generally held until the end of each meeting; members of the public now have opportunity to provide comment just prior to the lunch break or prior to the end of the meeting. Comment from the public was encouraged to assist the Committee's efforts to continually improve Arizona's domestic relations system. Existing workgroups continued to meet and develop recommendations intended to benefit the citizens of Arizona. Much of the work of the Committee in the previous year, 2002, was dedicated to development of the required integrated family court plan. The Integrated Family Court workgroup developed the plan and submitted a completed draft, including funding options, to the full Committee at the close of 2002 with the intent of the introduction of legislation to implement the plan statewide. Representative Karen Johnson advised the Committee that legislatively appropriated funding for new projects would be nearly impossible due to the existing state fiscal crisis. She worked with Chief Justice Charles Jones on a strategy to prevent the Integrated Family Court plan from dying. In March, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an Administrative Order that authorized implementation of three Integrated Family Court pilot projects in Maricopa, Coconino and Pinal Counties. The projects were formulated to adhere to the adopted Integrated Family Court plan to the extent possible recognizing that some administrative and financial variances and obstacles would occur. In December, 2003, the three pilot counties submitted reports to the Arizona Supreme Court. Some progress and successes have been realized, but funding remains a barrier to

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 10



full implementation of such a plan. The Committee will continue to hear reports on the progress of the projects over the coming year. The Committee's standing workgroups, Court Procedures, Substantive Law and Education/Prevention continued to forge ahead with their respective projects, including an educational session focusing on child custody with a guest speaker from the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Substantive Law workgroup focused specifically on a joint custody proposal for possible introduction in 2004; the Court Procedures workgroup dedicated its time to the dedicated family bench issues, and the Education/Prevention workgroup continued to develop a "divorce education" program for children. TASKS AND OBJECTIVES Listed below is a description of the major activities by Committee workgroups. Court Procedures In past years, this workgroup had been responsible for recommending much of the legislation proposed by the Committee. The group continued to explore ideas for reform to domestic relations procedures in the courts. Primarily, the group discussed and researched topics relevant to the domestic relations process in the courts. In 2003, they focused on the notion of creating a dedicated family bench. Judicial burnout is significant on the family law bench due to the highly emotional nature of family law matters and extraordinarily high caseload. Judges in Pima and Maricopa Counties rotate on and off the family law bench every two years which can lead to inconsistency and a public perception of judicial disinterest. After meeting with Chief Justice Charles Jones and Vice Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to collaborate on solutions, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge Colin Campbell and Pima Superior Court Presiding Judge John Leonardo appeared before the Committee with a series of options and solutions aimed at alleviating the problem, such as longer terms on the family law bench, creating a dedicated family court or advertising vacancies

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 11



on the family bench. Chief Justice Charles Jones also met with the Committee to discuss options such as addressing the judicial nominating commissions to bring the issue to the forefront. Acting on this idea, Judge Mark Armstrong, Family Court Presiding Judge in Maricopa County, appeared before the trial court commissions in November to apprise them of the size of the family court in Arizona and accompanying issues. As a starting point for providing information to the trial court commissions, the workgroup began drafting a letter expressing the unique, complex issues surrounding the family court bench assignment. The group will continue to work on this issue and other court processes with a goal of improving the family court for Arizona's citizens. Education/Prevention The Education/Prevention workgroup continued to shape policies and procedures to develop and offer new education and prevention ideas and improve methods currently in use within the domestic relations system. Several important ideas were generated from this group with the main focus on the addition of divorce education programs for children whose parents are in the divorce process. Current law requires parents involved in any action where custody, parenting time or child support is at issue to attend a parent education class prior to entry of a final order. The group extended an invitation to Dr. Wanda Weber, Parent Education Coordinator in Maricopa County's Superior Court and Clarence Cramer, Conciliation Court Director in Pinal County's Superior Court to discuss the current divorce education programs for parents in Arizona. They joined the full Committee in April to present an overview of their respective programs. In 2003, the group developed a proposal and curriculum for a children's "divorce education" class. In 2004, they plan to finalize and propose a plan to the full Committee. Substantive Law The Substantive Law workgroup was originally a part of the Courts and Substantive Law workgroup, but was made a separate workgroup in 1999. The workgroup focused primarily on a custody proposal for possible introduction for legislation in 2004. The group prepared and made several

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 12



revisions to a draft custody proposal that would require a parenting plan in most cases and create a presumption for shared custody. The proposal was aimed at expressing a statement that the starting ground in terms of child custody should be equality for both parents. The full Committee spent a considerable amount of time discussing the custody proposal. While the Committee did not reach consensus prior to the end of 2003, they plan to conduct a vote on a final proposal when they reconvene in January, 2004. At that meeting, three researchers, expert in custody matters, from Ohio, California and Tucson, Arizona are scheduled to discuss current research and trends in child custody across the country. Please see the following section below titled "Recommendations for Legislative Action" for additional details about potential legislative proposals for 2004. Recommendations for Legislative Action The product of the Substantive Law workgroup may or may not result in a legislative proposal concerning child custody being submitted to the Legislature. In January 2004, the Committee will vote on the proposal and ask for sponsorship by the Committee co-chairs if the vote is affirmative. Other Issues before the Committee Issues focusing on children were at the forefront of lawmakers' minds in 2003 as evidenced by significant changes in laws and policies governing the child protection system. Because dependency issues sometimes overlap family court cases, the Committee invited representatives of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Office of the Governor to present an overview of their respective reports and recommendations on child protective services. Mark Faull, Special Assistant County Attorney, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, discussed the Arizona Voice for Crime Victims report entitled, "In Harm's Way". Key recommendations focused on child safety, parent accountability, improved protocol and separation of Child Protective Services from the Department of Economic Security.

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 13



Tracy Wareing, Policy Advisor for Children's Services, Office of the Governor, provided an overview of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Child Protective Services report entitled, "Improving Arizona's Child Protection System � Report and Recommendations". Key recommendations centered on accountability, response systems, juvenile justice and education reforms, prevention, funding and implementation. Committee member, Dr. Bill Fabricius, Arizona State University, provided a presentation of his research on the perceptions of young adults about domestic violence between their parents or violence directed at the children. Dr. Fabricius continues researching matters concerning the family and divorce and plans to continue his vital contributions to the Committee. State Representative Russell Pearce appeared before the Committee in August to discuss a problem he has observed as a law enforcement officer, justice of the peace and as a legislator. He claims that some litigants wrongly use Orders of Protection for purposes of gaining legal advantage in domestic relations cases. While recognizing the complexities of the issue such as protecting "true" victims of domestic violence, he offered several suggestions for the Committee to consider, including: separation of violent and non-violent domestic violence offenses, requirement of evidence in hearings, consequences for false allegations and cross Orders of Protection. The Committee offered to take the matter under consideration in 2004. Committee member Bill Hart reported on a study that was designed to explore the experiences of battered women in Arizona who have been involved in a child custody case. The study entitled "Battered Mothers' Testimony Project" was commissioned by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence and contained recommendations for changes to Arizona's courts, including: increased domestic violence training for judicial officers and a requirement for the court to make written conclusions of law when custody is contested. Other presentations were provided to the Committee over the course of the year and served as follow-up information to previously implemented programs and general information sessions that were designed to educate members in all areas of domestic relations.

Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Page 14



Future Actions Based on the recommendations of the workgroups, the Committee will continue to develop proposals for future legislative action and to pursue a strategy for accomplishing the long-term goal to improve and reform the domestic relations system. Workgroups will continue to explore issues currently under discussion, new issues that arise, and endeavor to increase public awareness of domestic relations issues. Although the Committee did not reach consensus on its major issues this year, discussion of topics such as child custody, integrated family court and a dedicated family bench will continue throughout 2004. Once again, the intended purpose of maintaining and continuing a statewide Committee comprised of stakeholders from various backgrounds in the domestic relations arena was shown to be a wise and successful endeavor. Significant gains in domestic relations law have been realized through the efforts of this Committee by utilizing current, empirical, data-driven research, practical experience, and testimony from Arizona's citizens. Arizona is held up as visionary and progressive in domestic relations law as a result of this Committee's collaborative efforts, Each year, a number of proposals are introduced to the Legislature with the intent of altering procedures and standards in domestic relations cases without presentation to the Domestic Relations Committee first. The Committee stands prepared to serve as a clearinghouse for new ideas and proposals and provide input to the Legislature, in order that system changes be developed in a coherent manner in the best interests of our state's families and children.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 15



APPENDIX TO DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE 2003 ANNUAL REPORT



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 16



DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE

PURPOSE Pursuant to A.R.S. � 25-323.02, the Domestic Relations Committee was formed to: Prepare a statewide plan for an integrated family court with comprehensive subject matter jurisdiction over all matters involving the family and submit this plan to the Governor, the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on or before December 31, 2002. Prepare an annual written report regarding recommended changes to the domestic relations statutes, rules and procedures and other related issues designed to lead a reform of the state's domestic relations statutes. The Committee shall submit this report to the Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court on or before December 31 of each year and provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 17



DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE

MEMBERSHIP Membership consists of the following members who have knowledge of or experience in domestic relations and related issues: � Two noncustodial parents who are knowledgeable in domestic relations issues and who are not judges or commissioners. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each appoint one of these members. � Two custodial parents who are knowledgeable in domestic relations issues and who are not judges or commissioners. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each appoint one of these members. � Two parents who have joint custody who are knowledgeable in domestic relations issues and who are not judges or commissioners. The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each appoint one of these members. � Two parents who are knowledgeable in domestic relations issues, who are not judges or commissioners and who are appointed by the Governor. � Two active or retired judges or commissioners or both from the domestic relations department of the Superior Court who are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. One of these members shall be from an urban county and one member shall be from a rural county. � One domestic relations attorney who is appointed by the Governor.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 18



� One Clerk of the Superior Court who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. � A professional domestic relations mediator who is appointed by the President of the Senate. � A psychologist experienced in performing child custody evaluations who is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. � A domestic relations educator who is experienced in matters relating to parenting or divorce classes and who is appointed by the Governor. � A representative of a statewide domestic violence coalition who is appointed by the President of the Senate. � A representative of a conciliation court who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. � A marriage and family therapist who is knowledgeable in domestic relations issues and who is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. � A representative from a faith-based organization who is knowledgeable in domestic relations issues and who is appointed by the Governor. � An administrative officer of the Supreme Court who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. � A member of a law enforcement agency in this state who is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. � A member of an agency that advocates for children who is appointed by the President of the Senate.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 19



� One member of the family law section of the State Bar of Arizona who is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.



� Two members of the Senate who are members of different political parties. The President of the Senate shall appoint these members and shall designate one of them as the co-chairperson. � Two members of the House of Representatives who are members of different political parties. The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint these members and designate one of them as the co-chairperson.



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 20



DOMESTIC RELATIONS COMMITTEE

LIST OF MEMBERS Co-Chair: Senator Mark Anderson Co-Chair: Representative Karen Johnson

Honorable Karen Adam Domestic Relations Commissioner Honorable David Bradley State Representative Honorable Bill Brotherton State Senator Sidney Buckman Conciliation Court Representative Kat Cooper Domestic Relations Educator Frank Costanzo Marriage and Family Therapist William Fabricius Parent Beverly Frame Clerk of the Court Nancy Gray Noncustodial Parent William Hart Domestic Violence Coalition Rep. Terrill J. Haugen Noncustodial Parent Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003 Jennifer Jordan Domestic Relations Mediator Honorable Dale Nielson Domestic Relations Judge (Rural) Ella Maley Custodial Parent David Norton Law Enforcement Representative Steve Phinney Faith-Based Organization Rep. Janet Scheiderer Administrative Office of the Courts Ellen Seaborne Domestic Relations Attorney Kelly Spence Parent Judy Walruff Children's Advocacy Agency Rep. Steve Wolfson State Bar, Family Law Section Rep. Debborah Woods-Schmitt Parent with Joint Custody Page 21



Brian Yee Psychologist, Child Custody Evaluator Jeffrey Zimmerman Parent with Joint Custody Vacant Custodial Parent



Domestic Relations Committee Annual Report 2003



Page 22