Posts Tagged ‘Arizona Attorney’

ARIZONA DIVORCE ATTORNEY DISCUSSES TEMPORARY ORDERS

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

May 1st, 2013

When Temporary Orders Are Necessary in Arizona Family Law Cases

Submitted by Attorney Douglas C. Gardner

Temporary Orders often needlessly increase the cost of a divorce or family law case in Arizona.   In many cases, the extra cost to get temporary orders that are only in place for a few months are not financially justifiable.  However, in certain cases, temporary orders are necessary to balance the power in a case and ensure that both sides have fair negotiating position and to ensure that the children are not improperly used in a tug-of-war.

Most typically, the issues sought in temporary orders are child support, spousal support, parenting time, and exclusive use of a house or vehicle.

Temporary exclusive use of a house or car is often sought when the parties are unable to reach an agreement as to how to temporarily get along.  Sometimes temporary use of a house is required because of domestic violence by one party.  Other times, one party has moved out of the house, but refuses to respect the privacy of the other party still in the house.  Often exclusive use of the house accompanies a battle over parenting time.

Hopefully the parties to any case can reach agreements as to parenting time so as not to involve the children in a tug-of war.  However, when both parents have different expectations about parenting time, it may be necessary to involve the court.

Courts may be asked to enter any orders on a temporary basis that the Court has jurisdiction to enter on a permanent basis.  Your attorney can help you understand the costs involved and the value of obtaining temporary orders in any given case to assist you in deciding whether it is worth pursuing.

The long term value of temporary orders needs to be discussed with an experienced attorney also.   On the one hand, the orders are temporary and in that line should have no long term effect.  The Court’s final orders should be retroactive and if the temporary orders were too low or too high, the difference should be resolved.

On the other hand, too often the temporary orders do have significant effect on the case, settlement, and even the trial. It is important to get appropriate orders in place when sought by either party.

When a Court has held a temporary orders hearing and ordered temporary spousal support (for example) of $1,000.00 per month, this has a significant persuasive effect on both parties.  Knowing that the Court has heard the evidence (even if it was the short version of the evidence) the court already determined this to be an appropriate amount.  Generally, this will carry significant weight in settlement discussions.  Additionally, there are many judges that will simply order that final orders begin from the date of the final trial forward and will leave the temporary orders as they were.

Temporary orders as to exclusive use of a house will also increase a party’s likelihood of getting the house when both parties are seeking to be awarded the house in the final orders. The Court will see that one party has already moved out and it will therefore be more simple to leave that party in the house.

Prior to pursuing temporary orders, speak with your attorney about what you hope to accomplish, the costs of seeking to obtain your desired result, and the potential long term consequences of seeking temporary orders.

If you are involved in a divorce, legal separation, or annulment case or other family law case, if you are involved in a case in which temporary orders may be necessary, and if you have determined that you need experienced legal representation, please call 800-899-2730 and ask to speak with Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

Finding The Right Attorney: Finding an Appropriately Balanced Attorney

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2013

Arizona Divorce Lawyer Discusses How To Find The Right Attorney

Submitted by Attorney Douglas C. Gardner

I have always found photos of the heavy built person with the bulldog on a leash next to the overly stylistic person with the overly dressed up French poodle to be hilarious.  People joke about other people finding dogs that most resemble them.  Throughout my law practice, I have often found that many clients seem to select lawyers who resemble themselves in many ways.  Specifically, people of low morals and ethics seem to be able to find attorneys with low morals and ethics.  Overly aggressive individuals seem to seek out attorneys who will be overly aggressive.

Such behavior can become quickly problematic, as it may be more advantageous to have an attorney who is appropriately balanced.  When I am representing clients in a divorce, I recognize and understand that my clients are normal people, but that they are going through what is most likely the most difficult time in their lives.  Generally clients in divorce cases are struggling financially (which usually occurs even before the divorce starts, and may be part of the cause).  Clients going through divorce cases have to juggle parenting duties that were historically divided between the other parent.  Clients going through divorce have strong emotions that they must work through including the hurt, betrayal, anger, etc.

I feel that when hired as a divorce attorney, my job is to recognize the emotion, but to not get pulled in or effected by the emotion.  I feel that as a divorce attorney I am the legal and logical “Jiminy Cricket” proverbially on my client’s shoulders whispering to them what the legal and logical choice would be and helping them see beyond their emotional choices.  Choices made during a divorce often have life-long lingering effects, and should be carefully considered from the emotional, legal, and logical perspectives before making any decision.

The problem with overly aggressive people seeking out overly aggressive attorneys, or less ethical people seeking out less ethical attorneys, is that instead of an advocate fighting to  help you understand what is best, you may hire a cheerleader that will simply encourage you to act out emotionally without considering the logical and legal ramifications.

Any divorce attorney who has handled more than a few cases has been “fired” by a client.  For me, it does not happen often, but does occur.  I have certainly been hired by many more clients who have fired prior attorneys than I have been fired from.  I have found it interesting that I am usually fired for one of two reasons:  1) being too nice, or 2) being too aggressive.  Whenever I have a client that indicates that he/she is not fully satisfied with my services, I explain to them how we can fix things to make it right, and I discuss with them that they have the option of representing themselves or hiring another attorney (within our firm or from another firm).  It is important for clients to have confidence in their chosen attorneys, so that clients trust the legal and logical advice given.  It is important for clients to have confidence in the strategy (for settlement and/or for trial) utilized by the attorney.

My general preference in any case is to come in nice, and to try and resolve cases amicably through settlement.  I have learned that when I come in too harsh and too strong that it may cause the case to go through litigation unnecessarily.  It is generally easier to get meaner and nastier as the case progresses than the other way around.  Some clients are looking for attorneys that will instantly be on the attack.  While there are certain cases where this is appropriate (such as an emergency cases where emergency orders are needed right away), in general, those attorneys who come on unnecessarily strong at the beginning of a case do so simply to ensure that the case costs much more than it would have otherwise needed to cost.

Even when taking the gloves off, it is important to have an attorney who remains ethical and professional at all times.

If you are involved in a divorce case or other parenting time case involving “legal decision making” (the new word for legal custody), or other simple or complex issues and want experienced legal representation, please call 800-899-2730 and ask to speak with Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

Arizona’s New Family Law Changes

Saturday, December 1st, 2012

GILBERT, TEMPE AND MESA ARIZONA DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW LAWYER DISCUSSES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO FAMILY LAW STATUTES

Submitted by Attorney Douglas C. Gardner

                       

As of January 1, 2013, Arizona Courts will no longer decide custody cases.  Parents will no longer receive visitation with their children in divorce and other child related cases.  There are several significant and important changes to Arizona statute that will go into effect on January 1, 2013.  I hope I have your attention.

Many of these new changes are semantics, and simply a change in the words we use and the definition of those words.  Courts will still undertake the same issues, but rather than entering orders for sole custody or joint custody, the Court will enter orders regarding which parent will be the “legal decision makers.”

Also, by definition, a parent will no longer have “visitation” but will have “parenting time.”  Only grandparents and other non-parents can get court ordered “visitation.”

While peripherally, these changes will simply make it difficult for attorneys and judges to remember what the new jargon is, the real change will come as time marches on.  These new changes are intended to dramatically further the co-parenting and the joint involvement of both parents.

Up through the late 1970s and  early 1980s, the Courts were legally to consider the presumption that a mother was the parent with whom children of “tender years” were to reside with.  This was legally eliminated some 30 years ago, but has continued to linger while slowly going away.

Over the last few years, there has been a dramatic additional shift towards having father’s more significantly involved.  More and more judges are starting with the presumption of an equal parenting time plan rather than the presumption that mom will have the children except on alternating weekends.

Another big change is the elimination from the list of items for the Court to consider in custody cases of “which parent has been the primary care provider.”  This often favored mothers, as mothers more often provide the primary care for younger children.  This has been replaced with “the past, present and potential future relationship between the parent and the child.”  This more future looking consideration may have a very significant impact on many child related cases.

The long term effects of these changes are yet to be determined.  The clear intent of the legislature is to ensure that there is no bias based upon the gender of the parents.

If you are involved in a divorce case or other parenting time case involving “legal decision making” (the new word for legal custody), or other simple or complex issues and want experienced legal representation, please call 800-899-2730 and ask to speak with Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

 

Divorce Preparation- Part 2

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

Preparing for a Divorce Trial Part 2; Presenting Relevant Evidence.

By Attorney Karl Scholes

Preparing for a Divorce Trial Part 2; Presenting Relevant Evidence. 

Preparing for a divorce trial can be a daunting task. The difficulty comes in having so many issues to cover, and having so little time to cover them. Parties to a divorce (usually those who have opted to not hire an attorney) will commonly make the mistake of using up what little court time – and judicial patience – allotted to them by presenting the Court with irrelevant testimony. 

In Arizona, there are certain findings that the court must make to enter a decree of dissolution of marriage. Those findings are found in A.R.S. § 25-312, and are as follows: 

  1. That one of the parties, at the time the action was commenced, was domiciled in this state, or was stationed in this state while a member of the armed services, and that in either case the domicile or military presence has been maintained for ninety days prior to filing the petition for dissolution of marriage. 
  2. The conciliation provisions of section 25-381.09 and the provisions of article 5 of this chapter either do not apply or have been met. 
  3. The marriage is irretrievably broken or, if the marriage is a covenant marriage, any of the grounds prescribed in section 25-903. 
  4. To the extent it has jurisdiction to do so, the court has considered, approved and made provision for child custody, the support of any natural or adopted child common to the parties of the marriage entitled to support, the maintenance of either spouse and the disposition of property. 

Noticeably absent from the above factors is anything to do with marital infidelity, imbecility of newly acquired significant others, or annoying habits of the other party. If it is not mentioned in the findings above, then the court does not want to hear about it. 

Now, the issues of 1.) child custody; 2.) the support of any natural or adopted child common to the parties of the marriage entitled to support, 3.) the maintenance of either spouse, and 4.) the disposition of property involve a lot of relevant testimony. The relevant factors for each of these issues are covered by statute, and are the topic for another time. 

However, none of the pertinent statutes include factors that have anything to do with marital infidelity, imbecility of newly acquired significant others, or annoying habits of the other party. These are never mentioned. 

Not even once.

If you are in need of legal counsel and would like to speak with an experienced family law attorney, please call 800 899-2730  or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. or www.davismiles.com

Arizona Dependency Deductions

Friday, October 12th, 2012

GILBERT, TEMPE AND MESA ARIZONA DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW LAWYER DISCUSSES CLAIMING CHILDREN FOR TAXES

Submitted by Attorney Douglas C. Gardner

 I was recently honored by an invitation to speak before a large group of local accountants and todiscuss with them issues involving an overlap between their accounting and CPA practice and my legal practice as an Arizona divorce and family law attorney.

I had gathered several topics that I wanted to address with them, and was prepared to speak for my allotted time.  As I delved into the issues I had prepared, the questions that surged from the audience quickly led me to the one issue that they most wanted to discuss, who gets to claim the children as dependency deductions and credits in Arizona. 

The problem lies in the fact that tax law or IRS regulations are federal, and divorces in Arizona are governed by state law.  Generally, when federal law covers an issue, it trumps or overrides conflicting state law.  However, with regard to claiming children, the IRS law recognizes that in divorce cases the divorce court should have the discretion to divide the right to claim children.  In fact, IRS provides for the general rule, which is that the parent with whom the children reside with for more than 50% of the time claims the children.  The stated exception, however, is that a state divorce court can order this division to occur otherwise. 

To accomplish this, the IRS requires a parent that is able to claim the children pursuant to a Court Order, but that does not have the children at least 50% of the time, to complete a Form 8322.

IRS has over the past few years tightened its regulations and no longer accepts court orders as evidence of who can claim the child, but strictly requires the form 8322.

The accountants wanted to know what they should do or advise the client to do when the wrong parent claimed the children or refused to sign the form 8322. 

As IRS now strictly requires the Form 8322, the sole recourse is to return to Court and ask the Court to strictly enforce the prior orders regarding claiming the children. 

Many clients have concerns with the costs of returning to court.  Having done this many times, the best way is to narrowly draft the documents filed with the Court and try to limit it to a single prompt emergency hearing on this single issue.  Sometimes, this can be handled with a single demand letter from an attorney and court can be altogether avoided. 

 

Generally, the Court will not be at all pleased with a party who has willfully disobeyed a court order.  The Court will often impose sanctions upon such a party, which may include payment of some or all of the attorneys fees involved. 

If you are involved in a divorce case involving child support, tax issues regarding the children, or other simple or complex issues and want experienced legal representation, please call 800-899-2730 and ask to speak with Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY FEES

Monday, September 10th, 2012

TEMPE AND MESA ARIZONA DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW LAWYER DISCUSSES ATTORNEY FEES AND BANKRUPTCY ISSUES

Submitted by Attorney Douglas C. Gardner

The “American Rule” regarding attorneys’ fees is that generally each party will pay his or her own attorneys fees and costs. There are, however, certain exceptions whereby the Court can order one party to pay all or some portion of the other party’s attorneys fees and costs.

In Family Law or Divorce cases in Arizona, A.R.S. § 25-324 governs when the Court can order one party to pay any portion of the other party’s fees. The Court must consider the reasonableness of the positions taken by the parties, and also the financial resources of each party. Generally, the greater the disparity in financial resources and the greater the unreasonableness of one party, the more likely the Court will order an award or attorneys fees.

A related issue that has arisen more often over the last few years with the terrible economy is when and whether these attorneys fees can be discharged in bankruptcy. As a general rule, money owed to a spouse or former spouse (such as for property settlement issues) can be discharged in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, though spousal support and child support are not dischargeable in any bankruptcy.

Attorneys fees fall in the grey area, and may be discharged in certain cases. The argument is that since the Court considers the financial resources of the parties, that it can be considered to be support in nature. The argument would be very strong if the primary issues litigated are child support and/or spousal support.

The Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(5) states that a bankruptcy discharge does not discharge support obligations. In re Catlow, 663 F.2d 960, 963 (9th Cir. 1981) recognizes that attorney’s fees awarded under Arizona law in a divorce action may be support obligations). In re Bradshaw, No. BR-05-24647-PHX-CGC, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 2892 at *4 (D. Ariz. Aug. 24, 2007) provides a similar analysis. In re Jarski, 301 B.R. 342, 347 (D. Ariz. 2003) further discusses the issue. Finally, Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589, 592, 81 P.3d 1048, 1051 (App. 2004) states that, in Arizona, as a matter of public policy, an award of attorney’s fees is “derived from and justified by the duty of support”.

If you are involved in a divorce case involving attorneys fees, bankruptcy, or other simple or complex issues and want experienced legal representation, please call 800-899-2730 and ask to speak with Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

Increasing Prevalence of Half-Time Schedules

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

By Attorney Kirk Smith

Mothers in the past were typically the parent of first choice when it came to receiving primary physical custody of  minor children. The orders of the court usually allotted more days each week to the mother, rather than the father.  Today most judges in Arizona take a more egalitarian view when it comes to allotting what amount of time each parent should spend with the minor child(ren). Due to this evolution in thinking, half-time schedules between parents are becoming much more prevalent in divorce and custody cases.

A half-time schedule is one where each parent is allowed close to, or exactly one half the amount of time each week or two week cycle, with their child(ren). Half-time schedules can be broken up in various ways depending on the availability and preferences of the parents. Some examples of half-time schedules are; 7-7, 2-2-3, and 3-3-5.

A 7-7 schedule would be one week with mom, then, one week with dad. A 2-2-3 schedule would be two days with dad, then two days with mom, and alternating weekends with mom or dad. So long as the time period in question, which generally would be a week or two week cycle, is split in a relatively even fashion it is considered a half-time schedule.

Good news for any non-custodial parent who is wanting more time with their child(ren) but was afraid that the courts would only give them every other weekend. This is not to say, that if historically speaking, one parent has spent more time with the child(ren) then the other, that the courts won’t look at this factor in making an appropriate decision. None the less this factor alone is not always outcome determinative and will be one of several factors the court can consider.

For a parent wanting to request a half-time schedule from the courts, that parent should keep in mind the age of minor child(ren) in devising which half-time schedule they would like to propose. Studies have shown that younger babies or toddlers need more frequent contact with both parents, whereas, older children can go longer periods without seeing either parent. Consequently, a one week on and one week off schedule would not be the best half-time schedule to propose for a very young child. Under those circumstances a better suggestion to the court might be to propose a 2-2-3 schedule to accommodate the minor child’s(ren) burgeoning emotional needs.

Nothing is ever guaranteed when going to court to resolve disputes between parties. Regardless, a non-custodial parent who has consistently “been there for their children” has a much better chance today, then in the past, of seeing their child(ren) at least one-half of the time.

If you are in need of legal counsel and would like to speak with an experienced family law attorney, please call 800 899-2730  or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. or www.davismiles.com

TEMPE AND MESA ARIZONA DIVORCE AND FAMILY LAW LAWYER DISCUSSES IMPLICATIONS OF FACEBOOK IN FAMILY LAW CASES

Monday, August 27th, 2012

Submitted by Attorney Douglas C. Gardner

When involved in litigation, or even when there is the prospect of litigation, parties should be aware of certain aspects of Facebook, that they may not have ever considered before.

Two competing concepts need to be discussed, and the differences understood.  First, it is beneficial to parties likely to be involved in litigation to not create evidence that may be used against them, and this includes posting to Facebook.  We have all heard many times (hopefully only on T.V.) that we “have the right to remain silent, and that anything we say may be used against us in a court of law.”  Similarly, though not specifically stated when read our Miranda rights, you have the right to not post on Facebook anything that may be incriminating. 

Obviously inappropriate Facebook posts may include any indiscretions, adulterous situations, use of illegal drugs, abuse of alcohol, abuse of the children, etc.  However, even a seemingly harmless post that “I am in Colorado visiting Aunt Jane” may be used as evidence in a contempt case for leaving the state with the children during the pendency of a divorce case.  Be careful what you post.  If you have any hint that you may be involved in a divorce case in the near or even far future, remember that you have the right to remain silent on Facebook also. 

Once a divorce or other family law case has been filed, you cannot now simply close out your Facebook account.  Destroying, hiding, or otherwise disposing of evidence can be a serious crime and result in serious sanctions in your case.  This is often referred to as “spoliation of evidence.”  Once a case has been filed, it is too late to remove problematic posts.  Furthermore, Facebook does not delete your account when you ask to close out your account, as all of your entire Facebook file remains in the computers, and can be subpoenaed if and when needed. 

Even if you are not anticipating a divorce or legal battle, you should always monitor and pay attention to your security settings, limiting who has access to your profile on Facebook. 

If you are involved in a divorce case involving simple or complex issues and want experienced legal representation, please call 800-899-2730 and ask to speak with Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

 

ARIZONA DIVORCE LAWYER: FATHER’S RIGHTS IN ARIZONA CUSTODY CASES

Monday, July 16th, 2012

Submitted by Attorney Douglas Gardner

 

East Valley Divorce Attorney Discusses Father’s Rights in Divorce Cases

 

 

Arizona has moved forward in terms of Father’s rights recently, which changes how cases should be handled whether you are the Mother or the Father.

 

In the 1970s and 1980s, a typical custody order would have the children reside with the Mother, and Father would see the children on alternating weekends and two weeks during the summer.  As we moved into the 1990s and the 2000s, Father’s rights and Father’s role in raising children received significant attention from mental health professionals, which trickled its way into state laws and into the courtroom practices of judges.  Weekday parenting time to the Father became more common, and alternating holidays, equal sharing of summer and Christmas school recess became more common.1155156

 

Over just the last two years, the Courts have moved beyond this, to much more often awarding equal parenting time when the parent’s live close enough to allow the children stability in school while residing with both parents. 

 

Moving to equal parenting time has its pros and cons.  Many children feel like they live at neither house, but “camp” at both houses and move back and forth.  Other children enjoy the significant relationship with both parents being much more involved.  Equal time parenting plans allow both parents to have their own time as well as parenting time, and can balance the various difficulties  in life including jobs and other responsibilities.  However, Equal time for many mother’s necessarily includes reduced parenting time. 

 

One difficulty often ran into is societal expectations.  While these changes are great for Father’s that want to be more involved, many mother’s feel that the Court has punished them because they are familiar with other families in which the Mother was named the primary parent, and they feel that they are as good or better of a parent than this other parent.  Such comparisons fail to account for the dramatic changes in the law over just the past few years. 

 

1345577While many Father’s enjoy this additional time with their children, some Father’s realize that having the children 50% of the time causes them to be away from work more of the time, as schooling, sick children, and other issues are now falling on their parenting time 50% of the time. 

 

Equal parenting time is not appropriate in all cases.  I still see many cases in which Father or Mother can provide a better life style, stability, safe environment, and other factors and in which we can persuade the Court to award my client’s more than 50%/50% custody.  However, proving that such is the case requires a solid case and a well prepared trial plan. 

 

If you are experiencing legal issues involving custody or other difficult issues, whether as part of a divorce, after the divorce has already been entered, or a custody battle in which the parents were never married, you should have experienced legal counsel on your side. Please call 800 899-2730 and ask to speak with attorney Douglas C. Gardner, or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com.

Calculating A “Ball-park” Child Support Amount.

Monday, July 9th, 2012

 

Submitted by Attorney Karl Scholes

 

I will often have my divorce, or post-decree, clients ask me, “How much child support will I be receiving/paying?” My normal answer to them is a resoundingly, lawyerly, “It depends.”

 

When they press me for a more specific response, I tell them, “Well, we just need to apply the Arizona Child Support Guidelines.” I then proceed to instruct them as to what the Guidelines specify.

 

However, when they push back even more, I tell them, “Oh, you are looking for a “ball-park” calculation. That I can get for you.”

 

The remainder of this article is an explanation on how to come to a “ball-park[1] ” child support calculation.

 

First, one should understand at least a little of the background about child support in Arizona. It is important to understand that Arizona law requires custodial and non-custodial parents to provide “reasonable support” for their minor children. A.R.S. §25-501(A). A parent’s child support obligation has priority over all other financial obligations of the parent. A.R.S. §25-501(C).

 

In addition, the court receives the authority to award child support under A.R.S. §25-320. This statute also makes it mandatory for the court to issue an order of child support as per the Arizona Child Support Guidelines, (unless the court finds that a deviation is necessary… which is a subject matter for another day.)

 

The Arizona Guidelines follow the Income Shares Model, which means that the total child support amount approximates the amount that would have been spent on the children if the parents and children were living together.  The guidelines involve numerous intricacies, and for a full application, one should consult an attorney – who is experienced in using the Arizona Child Support Guidelines – as to how the guidelines apply to each individual case.

 

Second, to get a “ball-park” child support calculation, one must be able to answer the following questions:

 

1.      What is the gross income of both parties? (Note, this issue sometimes becomes complicated, especially if one party is self-employed, has an income that is not easily ascertainable, or if one party is unemployed. Consult an attorney if there are any complications in your case.)

2.      What is the number and ages of minor children involved? (Note, if this factor is complicated, please consult a mental health professional before seeking the advise of an attorney.)

3.      What is the cost of medical/dental/vision insurance for the minor child(ren): The key to this factor is to find the cost for medical insurance for just the minor children. (Note, at times, this factor can be complicated as well. Please consult an attorney if there are any complications in your case.)

4.      What are the monthly childcare costs for the minor children?

5.      Are there any extra education expenses paid for the minor children?

6.      Are there any extraordinary (gifted or handicapped) expenses for the minor children?

7.      How many days, out of a year, will the non-custodial parent have with the minor children?

 

Third, the next step is to plug the numbers from the answers above into their corresponding areas in the Arizona child support calculator, which can be found here:

 

Fourth, once you have plugged in the numbers above into the calculator, it will dispense a number under the heading “Child Support Obligation to be paid by____________”. This is where you will have your “ball-park” child support number.

 

If there are complications in your child support case, or to get an exact child support calculation, contact a family law attorney who is experienced in using the Arizona Child Support Guidelines.

 

If you are in need of legal counsel and would like to speak with an experienced attorney, please call 800 899-2730  or visit our website at www.yourarizonadivorcelawyer.com. or www.davismiles.com


[1] While a “ball-park” calculation of child support may be important for purposes of settlement, or setting expectations, one should note that a full child support calculation should be done by an attorney who is experienced in using the Arizona Child Support Guidelines.