In Arizona, an uncontested divorce, one in which the parties agree on all aspects of the divorce, usually takes about 90 to 120 days. Arizona has a 60-day waiting period following the filing and service of the initial dissolution documents. After the 60 days, the court, either pursuant to a hearing or upon submission, must sign the final dissolution documents. This is the reason for the additional time. If the dissolution is contested, it usually takes substantially longer, typically between six and eighteen months; however, some divorces take years

Yes. First, many rules go into effect via the Preliminary Injunction, as described above. This Preliminary Injunction is part of every properly filed divorce action in Arizona. Second, many parties to a divorce want more specific rules in place until the divorce becomes final. These case-specific rules are handed down by the court after one party or both request temporary orders. A request for temporary orders may require a brief court hearing if the parties cannot agree. These temporary orders may address such issues as child support, custody, parental access, spousal maintenance (alimony), payment of debts, use of the marital residence and other issues. The temporary orders are only valid until the court finalizes the divorce.

If your divorce is complex, contested or involves children, we don't recommend it. And we don't consider it a good idea to let a paralegal file the initial documents and then retain an attorney later. It's preferable to let an attorney guide your divorce from the beginning. Of course, independent paralegal firms might disagree with our opinion.

Yes. Under Arizona law, the court may grant a party's request for attorney's fees after considering two factors: (1) the parties' financial resources, and (2) the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings. This means that a wealthy spouse may end up paying for a less well to do spouse's attorney fees. Likewise, a party who has been unreasonable has probably delayed the final resolution of the case, caused the other party to incur unnecessary fees and wasted the court's time. The court may use one party's unreasonable position, therefore, to justify an award of attorney's fees. There are no guarantees that a particular judge will award fees and costs, as this is a discretionary decision.

No, but Arizona may recognize a common law marriage from another state.

This is a common issue in divorce cases. Once a divorce has been filed and served, a court order called a Preliminary Injunction goes into effect. Among other things, this Injunction states that neither party may remove the children from Arizona without permission. However, if the children are removed prior to the divorce being filed, a number of factors come into play. Usually the strongest factor is the length of time that the children have resided in each place.

Under Arizona law, it is possible that a parent with sole custody or one who is designated the primary physical custodian may be permitted to move from the state, as long as the reasons for moving are ones designated as proper according to law. Some of these reasons include employment-related changes of the parent or the parent's new spouse, as well as health and safety considerations.

No, unless the court has issued its Order denying the access. In fact, under Arizona law, a person who does not comply with a parent's reasonable request for records must reimburse the requesting parent for court costs and attorney fees that parent incurs in forcing compliance with this law. In other words, a non-custodial parent may request a child's records directly from a school or medical facility, as long as the request is done reasonably.

Arizona Revised Statute §25-804 allows either parent to institute paternity proceedings during the pregnancy. Proceedings to establish child support must be started before the child's 18th birthday, except possibly in the case of a physically or mentally disabled child. Interestingly, an adult may even bring an action to establish the adult's biological parent. A.R.S. §25-803(B).

Yes. The birth certificate is evidence of paternity but, in the courts' eyes, is little more. In order to solidify a father's rights and obligations, an Order of Paternity must be sought. The Order is issued by the proper court to officially declare the father's identity. Only after paternity is officially ordered can a court also enter permanent child support, custody and visitation orders.

The State of Arizona becomes involved in paternity cases in two situations: First, when paternity must be established and, second, when a party requests assistance in enforcing a child support order. The State does not represent either party, although it may seem that way sometimes because the State's interests usually parallel the custodial parent's. The State is happy to establish paternity because a paternity order is accompanied by a child support order in almost all cases, meaning that the likelihood of a parent needing state assistance to support the child is lessened. The State also files these cases to seek reimbursement from non-custodial parents for state assistance previously provided. If the State caused paternity establishment via a IV-D action, visitation/parental access will not normally be determined at the same time, however, either parent may request that custody and specific parenting time be established as part of the proceeding. A.R.S. §25-803(C).

The Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, is the federal law that works with the states to recoup money paid on behalf of children. So, when a parent receives public assistance, it is likely that the State will try to collect the same amounts from the other parent. This process can apply to both married and unmarried parents.

Believe it or not, a father has very nearly the same rights as a mother with one notable exception, that until paternity is established and a custody order entered, a mother is presumed to be the sole custodian of a child. This is because someone has to be legally able to make educational, medical and other important decisions on behalf of the child. Until the court makes it official, the only parent that can be verified is often the mother. However, if a father promptly acts to secure a paternity order, establishes a solid relationship with and supports his child, he enjoys the same chance at primary custody, substantial access and receiving child support as a mother. Studies show that many men assume they have no chance at primary custody so they do not try for that designation, even when they may be the better parent, because they assume that moms always win. The studies also show men win custody cases as much as moms. Custody, parenting time and child support for men in paternity cases are based on the same statutes and standards used in divorce actions.

No. Instead, you may need to file a civil case to seek that court's assistance.

File a petition in the court asking for entry of a parenting time schedule. Many parents ask for parenting time, a different custody designation and the proper child support amount all at the same time since the three can be interrelated.

Pursuant to A.R.S. §25-814, there is a presumption that the husband is the father if he and the mother were married at any time within the 10 months preceding the birth. However, this presumption can be con-tested and overturned with the proper evidence.

The parties should seek DNA testing to determine the father or at least to exclude one or more potential fathers. If the parties are not cooperating, it may be necessary to seek the court's assistance.

Yes. The amount of time considered in a back child sup-port order depends on each case's particular circumstances although 3 years is presumptively the correct amount of time. Under A.R.S. §25-809(B), the court can examine the reasons for the delay in establishing child support and apply its findings to the backdated order. If the court finds that one party was ill-motivated, difficult or hiding out, the court can make the child support order retroactive to the birth of the child even if more than 3 years.

Arizona, like most other states on the west coast, is considered a community property state. These states share many similar principles when it comes to dividing assets and obligations accrued during a marriage. Generally, anything that a married couple accumulates during the marriage is considered community property, that is, both spouses own an undivided share of the whole. Exceptions to this general principle include those assets acquired prior to the marriage, by gift, devise (by a will) or descent (inheritance). Because the Arizona courts start with a strong presumption that anything acquired during marriage is a community item, the spouse claiming a particular item is not community property has the burden of proving otherwise.

Generally, non-community property states are referred to as "common law title" states. Most states these days that are not officially community property states have laws on the books, often called "marital property" statutes that work similarly to community property principles, to one degree or another. However, in a true title state, the name on a title to an asset or the person's name listed as actually incurring a particular debt may indicate ownership of the asset or debt. Community property principles are meant to combat the unfairness that can occur when both parties contribute substantially to the marriage but one party handles all transactions or makes more money and ends up with the assets titled in his/her name alone.

In such cases, Arizona courts apply a concept known as "quasi-community property." The quasi-community property principle states that the Arizona court will divide an asset or debt on the basis of how the item would have been characterized had it been acquired in Arizona. Thus, even though another state would view the issue differently, Arizona treats it as though there had not been a connection to the other state. So, if a separate property state's principles would have said that a particular debt was sole and separate but the parties later moved to Arizona, the Arizona court would be expected to treat it as a community debt, provided that community property principles would have applied had the debt accrued in Arizona during the marriage.

Depends. Although the Arizona court can issue its order dividing the property, the other state is not bound by that order. The circumstances are important here. If an Arizona couple, pursuant to a divorce, agrees on how to divide the out-of-state property, the order should be transferable without much trouble. However, because Arizona does not have in rem jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction over the thing, another state's court may desire to issue its own order, especially when the two states' laws conflict. Obviously, this can be a messy situation and we may recommend bringing in counsel from the pertinent jurisdiction to effect a team approach. This helps make sure that we get both courts on the same page.

Yes. Legal separations in Arizona do not differ much procedurally from a full divorce. The main difference is the technical outcome - you and your spouse are still legally married. The court still divides all community property and obligations from the marriage as it would with a divorce. The court, as it would in a divorce, also stops all community property claims for the future between this couple - unless they elect to reunite at some point. In the case of an annulment, a couple may have accumulated substantial assets under the assumption that they were properly married. Arizona Revised Statute § 25-302(B) allows the court to divide that property.

Sure. Intentionally changing the nature of an asset is common. For example, one spouse may quit-claim a house to the other for some reason. This written agreement evidences their intent that the asset be sole and separate from that point on. Likewise, one spouse could change a sole and separate house to community property by an opposite change in title, to community property. The court would see that as a "gift" to the community. Many parties also use antenuptial (prenuptial) and postnuptial agreements to alter community property principles. On a different note, it is also possible to make the change unintentionally. This occurs in the case of commingling. Commingling occurs when separate assets and community assets become hopelessly mixed such that the court cannot tell the difference. This frequently occurs with bank accounts. The burden of tracing the separate asset falls on the spouse claiming a sole and separate interest. When an asset changes its nature, the process is called "transmutation."

Yes, for those portions that accumulated during the marriage. Portions that accumulated prior to the marriage are the sole and separate property of the party earning it. Pensions, 401(K)'s, IRA's and other deferred compensation receive treatment under Arizona community property principles like other assets. Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDRO's) are the legal document used to divide these items. Because it is expensive to prepare QDRO's (approximately $1000 to $1500 or more), many couples prefer to offset one party's deferred compensation against the other party's or another asset or debt. There is no requirement that all assets and debts be split in half equally, only that the division be "equitable." Thus, one party could get all the assets and all the debts, totaling zero, while the other party takes no assets and no debts, also totaling zero. An equal division is the goal but it is not always practical or even desirable to equalize to the last penny.

Depends on your particular situation. The concept of "waste" could apply in this case, making your spouse liable to you for your portion of the wasted asset, i.e., half. However, waste is not always an easy thing to prove and varies from case to case. For example, if Bill Gates spends $200,000, it might not be considered waste because it's such a minor amount for him and his wife. For most people, throwing away that much cash is a serious matter and so a court might be expected to address the $200,000 in the divorce by either offsetting other assets and debts to make up for it or ordering the wasting spouse to pay the other.

Not that much if you and your spouse are responsible. Debts the community incurs remain community debts in the eyes of creditors. Although it seems harsh many times, both spouses will remain liable for a community debt even though the court awards responsibility for that debt to one spouse or the other. Therefore, if the spouse ordered to pay does not do so, creditors have recourse against the other spouse. On occasion (not frequently), a creditor will agree to not pursue a spouse based on the Decree of Dissolution; however, they have no legal obligation to do so. The law takes the stance that third party creditors should not suffer as a result of a couple's bad relationship.