SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY DR 1999-017598 12/23/2002

HON. STEVEN D. SHELDON

CLERK OF THE COURT S. Morris Deputy FILED: 12/24/2002

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DEAN R DAHLSTEDT AND SHERRY L DAHLSTEDT

TERRIE S RENDLER

BRUCE D BROWN

CONCILIATION SERVICES-CCC TERRY J FISCHER 16042 N 32ND ST PHOENIX AZ 85032

MINUTE ENTRY

This matter was heard on the issues of Petitioner's attempt to enforce the Decree (the financial issues) and the custody and visitation issues. The financial issues preceded initially and a subsequent hearing on custody and parenting time issues followed. Post-hearing memoranda were filed as to all issues. THE COURT FINDS that Respondent has never sought an order for child support which would have triggered paragraph 13 of the Dissolution Decree ("if Mother petitions or moves the Court to modify this section of the Agreement, by requesting monthly child support payments prior to November 22, 2003 and [emphasis added by Court] if monthly child support is ordered prior to December 1, 2003; then Father will be entitled to his share of the equity of the residence as valued at December 1999" THE COURT ALSO FINDS that, in addition to Respondent never having actually requested child support, it is clear that no child support has been ordered to this date. Therefore, there is no triggering language necessitating the implementation of paragraph 13. At the time of the Evidentiary hearing, Respondent's counsel objected to the admission of certain exhibits (numbers 20, 21 and 22) on the basis that they were not timely produced. In fact, Form D000C Docket Code 019 Page 1

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY DR 1999-017598 12/23/2002

as evidenced by the post-hearing memoranda, the exhibits were not timely produced and, therefore, Respondent's objection to their admissibility is sustained. The Court will disregard them in the consideration of the issues presented. THE COURT FINDS that the clear and unambiguous language in the Decree drafted by Petitioner should be upheld and enforced. The Court does not find that their agreement is violative of public policy. Therefore, the Court declines to set aside the Decree as to the property settlement entered into by the parties. Furthermore, the Court rejects the testimony and arguments by Petitioner that he was under such duress or coercion at the time the Decree was entered that it should be set aside on the basis of unconscionability. With respect to the Motion to Modify Custody, Respondent/Mother had the burden of demonstrating that there were sufficient changed circumstances to warrant modifying the joint custody order currently in place. THE COURT FINDS that the parties do not communicate effectively; that there is a high level of conflict between them; that from the entry of the Dissolution Decree, it is likely that the parties have never reasonably communicated; that an Order of Protection was taken against Respondent/Mother as a result of violence towards Petitioner; that Petitioner/Father has inappropriately expressed attitudes, anger and feelings about Mother which reasonably caused Respondent/Mother concern regarding Father's state of "mental health"; that Dr. Joy's very limited contact with the parties, and absence of contact with the children, leave the Court unsure as to how her experience with Petitioner should be weighed, and the Court thus finds more persuasive and probative the testimony of Dr. Potts regarding Father's current mental state; that Father's testimony regarding his anger and frustration at the content of the Property Settlement/Dissolution Decree in which he essentially gave all property to Respondent, while not sufficient to set aside the agreement, has been considered by the Court, along with Father's testimony that he entered into such agreement in order to insure the children's safety and obtain substantial visitation with them as a factor under A.R.S. 25-403(A)(8) ("the nature and extent of coercion or duress used by a parent in obtaining an agreement regarding custody."). THE COURT ALSO FINDS reasonable evidence to suggest that Mother has engaged in inappropriate and unreasonable physical punishment of the children in the past and that Father has had a reasonable concern regarding such conduct. THE COURT ALSO FINDS Petitioner/Father's suggestion that no changed circumstances have been demonstrated which would warrant a change in custody to be persuasive, with the caveat and requirement that the parents follow certain Court-ordered requirements to facilitate the ongoing joint custody order. Therefore, Docket Code 019
Form D000C

Page 2

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY DR 1999-017598 12/23/2002

IT IS ORDERED denying Respondent/Mother's Petition to modify custody to sole custody. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED finding that no substantial evidence was demonstrated that Father presents a risk of danger to himself or others and, specifically, (1) that there is no evidence whatsoever in this record to suggest that he is in any way a potential danger to the children; (2) that the children may well have a preference for living with Father and, therefore, the children, upon Clinton's 12th birthday shall be interviewed by a family evaluator in Conciliation Services to determine his preferences as to where he would like to live; (3) that Father has not refused to follow the Court's August 2001 order. THE COURT FINDS that a high level of conflict exists between the parties, and IT IS ORDERED that both parties are to separately attend and complete a Parental Conflict Resolution class within 120 days of the date of this order. Each party is to contact Conciliation Services at (602) 506-1448 to register for a class. Following completion of the class each party is to file the original Certificate of Completion with the Clerk of Court to demonstrate compliance with these orders. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED appointing Terry J. Fischer as the Family Court Advisor in this matter by separate minute entry issued herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall continue to share visitation with the children; that the pick up and drop off shall be at school from Friday to Friday with the schedule to continue during the summer with each parent, however, being entitled to two consecutive weeks of vacation time with the children. If this vacation time cannot be agreed upon by the parties prior to May 1, they shall immediately contact the Family Court Advisor and compromise on a vacation schedule. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Father shall have final decision-making authority over education and all medical decisions and Mother shall have final decision-making authority over religious decisions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parents shall communicate with respect to issues involving the children prior to making decisions, either by fax or email or through the Family Court Advisor. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that neither of the parents shall make negative comments about the other parent to the children or otherwise involve them. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each parent shall obtain and review Maricopa County Superior Court Family Court Parent/Child Access Guidelines and review in particular, general rule 4 (page 2). The Court will expect strict compliance with the rule by both parents. Form D000C Docket Code 019 Page 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY DR 1999-017598 12/23/2002

FILED: Exhibit Worksheet.

Docket Code 019

Form D000C

Page 4