Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Terry Decker
5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
Mesa, AZ 85206
480 352-5294
[email protected] Madam Chairperson and Members,
I have had extensive service in the legislature for five years. That service has included being tasked by Senator Gray to represent Arizona citizens in stakeholders meetings for a bill among other things. Judge Cohen, then the chairman of the Supreme Court Child Support Committee, suggested that I serve on the Legislative Child Support Committee with his support. This I did.
The issues encompass, but are not limited to, the following:
1) Parent coordinator fees (range, cap, inquiry about parents’ finances, length of services, etc.).
2) Lack of recourse/appeal process for litigants.
3) Qualifications of parenting coordinators.
4) Scope of authority of parenting coordinators
Addressing Annette Burns’ comments, in part, in opposition to proposed changes please consider the following quote from page 3 paragraph 1.
“ Judge Barton, chair of that Workgroup, reported that there were four to six complaints from litigants that led to the formation of the Workgroup. [Email from Judge Barton to Family Law Executive Council and American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Arizona Chapter, dated December 6, 2014] If 4-6 litigants had complaints, and assuming that the estimate that there were 250 PC reports filed in 2013 is correct, then the litigant complaints represent 1.6- 2.4% of PC reports filed in 2013. The proposed changes to the Rule seem somewhat overwhelming in light of that percentage of “problems” reported.” The big problem is apparent, nobody knows how many PC reports were filed nor do we know how many clients were dissatisfied or harmed by their PCs which makes managing this or any process without data, virtually impossible
It would be appropriate for Ms. Burns to cite where her estimate of 250 PC reports filed in 2013 came from. It is of note that there is almost no actual data available. Therefore Ms. Burns is forced to resort to unsubstantiated estimates. It should be noted that choosing any single year to match with the alleged number of complainants is statistically incorrect and fallacious. There is no reason to believe and no information to support the statistical association of the litigants with year 2013.
Further, the representation that “4-6 litigants” represent the total mistreated litigants is grossly misleading. A more correct definition of these litigants is that they comprise the percentage of mistreated litigants that:
1) Had the financial, political awareness, political connections, energy left after being decimated psychologically, fiscally, and emotionally by one or more PCs to pursue a legislative connection.
2) Was able to obtain a response from a legislator. The majority of attempts at communication with a legislator are without success or response. Believe me, I know as I have been down this road.
3) Had the time to invest in learning the system. After being financially being decimated there is the very practical problem of feeding and clothing their children and providing housing in times of economic crisis.
4) Had the time to invest in a time consuming process of gaining access to a legislator.
5) It would rarely occur to the majority of victims that they might have any possibility of success in gaining the attention of a legislator. Almost nobody would even think such a thing.
It seems certain that far less than 1% of victims of PC abuse would succeed in becoming one of the “4-6 litigants.”
Given the above circumstances the number of actual mistreated “litigants” and their children that need protection from harm actually inflicted upon them would number in the hundreds or probably even thousands. It is an alarming number suggesting that the vast majority of PC interventions result in some form of abuse. The abuse is certainly not of the PCs.
It is very important to note that most clients represented by an attorney have been advised by their attorney not to bother to complain, as the attorney will assure them that there is no recourse outside of the courtroom!
Even PCs who do a decent job but charge 2 or 4 times as much for the level of service that could have been provided by a less expensive provider are abusing their clients. In this case we would call that financial abuse and this is the first of the four concerns listed by Judge Barton. Again, how can a needy family or client determine which low cost providers offer good service without any customer satisfaction survey data? A fact that we should all agree on is that charging $300 per hour does not guarantee 5 times the benefit of a PC charging $60 per hour. It is in fact possible that the $300 per hour PC might be doing a worse job than the $60, which I have personally experienced myself.
The lack of metrics from which one can derive accurate data to base decisions on for both the court and the consumer is unacceptable and unnecessary. There is an industry wide tool available which is in commonplace use around the world by companies endeavoring to be successful by providing quality products and services to their customers. That tool is ISO 9001. ISO Certification represents a “badge” of quality and is often a mandatory business requirement. For the benefit of the customers this Court is tasked to serve, the obtaining of ISO 9001 certification for the PC process defined by Rule 74 would be an industry leading move. At least the court can begin the process by putting ISO 9001 standards into practice by automating and providing relevant data to itself and to the public. The data would benefit not just the “litigant”, but also the court. It will make the court environment a clearer, more effortless, more fullfilling place to work. The same could be said for the litigants. It would serve to lower the level of stress and contention in direct and indirect ways. Currently the court and all the rest of us are flying blind in this matter. Which PCs are doing a good job and which PCs are doing a poor job or abusing their clients? Who knows on a global scale? That is what metrics are about, knowing on a global scale.
While some of the comments rendered by the PCs on this site have merit; in whole they are reminiscent of tactics used by attorneys in cases in which they have no case, so they obscure the truth. And these comments are by attorneys who have a great financial incentive to keep things as they are. That is a state that is unregulated, without oversight, and without any means by which anyone can define their actual behavior. The cloak of obscurity hanging over their activities and excessive fees is one that they will naturally fight to preserve.
Some of the commentators on R-15-0006 have great experience in ISO 9001 and will avail the court of their services. The use of an industry wide tool called Survey Monkey can readily facilitate the gathering of information.
It is unknown to this commentator if the court was successful at obtaining extra funds to continue providing some of their on line services. There are members of the community who are skilled at providing the modifications of the court website and system necessary to, for instance, provide needed user information and input on the court provider site. They have offered to provide these services free of charge to the court.
The data which seems necessary to manage the PC process would be:
1) Value provided to the customer (litigants) in the form of customer satisfaction, scale 1 to 10.
2) How much the client paid to get the results they got?
3) How many recommendations were made by PCs to the Family Court?
4) How many objections to PC recommendations were registered with the Court?
5) How many of these objections were sustained by Judges of the Family Court?
Please feel free to contact me at any time.
With Kind Regards,
Terry Decker
5120 E Hampton Ave, #1023
Mesa, AZ 85206
480 352-5294
[email protected]