Cited by

(The superior court “may consider expert opinion in making [its] decisions,” however, it can “neither delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.”).

(in child custody, the court may not delegate a statutorily-mandated duty to determine best interests to a third party); ¶¶ 19–20 (2014) (same applies to juvenile dependency and guardianship).

But the superior court “can neither delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.”

5 MESA v. O’CONNOR Opinion of the Court Superior Court, -74, ¶ 14 (App. 2013).

¶ 20 (App. 2013) (“Though the court may consider an expert’s opinion, .

To be sure, courts are not permitted to “delegate a judicial decision to an[y] witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.”

The pleading requirement in § 25-411(L) is intended to “spare the parties and the child the cost, disruption, and potential trauma of a full modification hearing unless the petition and supporting documents show ‘adequate cause.’” ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (procedure in § 25-411(L) is intended to prevent repetitive or insubstantial petitions to modify).

Ct. (Thrasher), ); see also A.R.S.

Further, we disagree with Father that the court abdicated its responsibility to use its independent judgment, -74, ¶ 14 (App. 2013), and DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), by quoting the older child’s counselor when making its findings.

(trial court must not “abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment”).

hall deny the motion unless it finds that adequate cause for hearing the motion is established by the pleadings, in which case it shall set a date for hearing on why the requested modification should not be granted.” The purpose of requiring adequate cause “is to spare the parties and the child the cost, disruption, and potential trauma of a full modification hearing.”

Nold, 232 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 14 (citing DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), ).

See DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher)

are for the [superior] court alone to decide.”) ().

Nold, 232 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 14 (citing DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), ).

(“[A] court can neither delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.

The purpose of requiring this threshold showing “is to spare the parties and the child the cost, disruption, and potential trauma of a full modification hearing unless the petition and supporting documents show ‘adequate cause.’”

“[T]he responsibility to make the findings is the court’s alone.” ¶ 20 (App. 2013) ().

She cites Hays v. Gama , , DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher) , , and In re Maricopa Cty.

(“[A] court can neither delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.”).

Ct. In and For County of Maricopa, –37 (App. 1995) (the proper challenge to a temporary order is by special action).

¶12 As an initial matter, however, “[t]he best interests of the child are for the family court alone to decide,” and the court cannot “delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.” Nold, 232 Ariz. at 274, ¶ 14 ().

¶ 20 (App. 2013) (citing DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), ).