By Ryan T. McGuire

On July 15, 2025, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an important ruling on Rule 5.1, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure. [1] The ruling illustrates the complexity of procedural rules.

Rule 5.1 becomes relevant when a family has both legal decision-making and parenting time (formerly child custody) proceedings in family court and a dependency proceeding (an action by the state against parental rights) in juvenile court simultaneously. The rule determines both the procedure when these proceedings intersect and which court makes the first determinations regarding the children.

This post will analyze and clarify Rule 5.1 by examining the text of the rule and the Court of Appeals decision in Magee v. Olson.

Rule 5.1, Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure

Rule 5.1 is organized into three parts. [2] First, subsection (a) establishes the process for transfers from Family Court to the Juvenile Division. It reads that “[i]f pending family law and dependency proceedings concern the same parties, the juvenile division has jurisdiction over the children.”  Simply put, if a dependency and a custody action take place at the same time, the dependency takes precedence.

The two subparts require that (1) the parties give notice to the family court of the dependency proceeding and (2), if the proceedings are transferred, the juvenile court will consider the child related issues until the dependency is dismissed or the judge sends the case back to family court.

Second, subsection (b) addresses referrals back to the family division. It provides that if the juvenile division determines a change of legal decision-making or parenting time is appropriate, it may refer the matter back to the family division for further proceedings. This gives the juvenile court discretion to send cases back when appropriate.

Third, subsection (c) covers child support orders. During any dependency or guardianship proceeding in juvenile court, the juvenile division may establish, suspend, modify, or terminate child support. The rule requires that any child support order be filed in both divisions.

Magee v. Olson [1]

The facts of Magee v. Olson illustrate exactly when Rule 5.1 applies. Magee, a grandmother, petitioned the family court for “in loco parentis, parenting time and legal decision-making rights” over her grandchild after her daughter (the child’s mother) died. While that petition was pending, the grandmother filed a dependency petition in juvenile court, alleging that the child was dependent as to the father, Olson.

The grandmother then provided notice to the family court under Rule 5.1(a)(1) and moved to transfer the family court proceedings to juvenile court. The family court denied the motion. The trial court interpreted Rule 5.1 to mean that a transfer required either a court order or a mutual agreement between the courts. Essentially, the family court believed it had discretion to decline the transfer.

The Court of Appeals disagreed and accepted special action jurisdiction to resolve this question of first impression. The court held that the family court erred in interpreting Rule 5.1.

The Court of Appeals emphasized several key points in its analysis:

First, the court noted that subsection (a) uses mandatory language. The rule states “the juvenile division has jurisdiction” not “may have jurisdiction.” This mandatory phrasing means the transfer is automatic upon proper notice.

Second, the court explained that the phrase “if the proceedings are transferred” in subsection (a)(2) describes what happens after transfer occurs, not whether transfer is discretionary. This phrase appears under the heading “Effect of Transfer,” indicating it addresses post-transfer procedures.

Third, the Court of Appeals contrasted the language in subsection (b), which gives the juvenile court discretion to refer matters back to family court using the word “may.” The drafters’ decision to use “may” in subsection (b) but not in subsection (a) demonstrates that subsection (a) is mandatory.

Fourth, the Court of Appeals examined the parallel language in Arizona Rule of Juvenile Procedure 323, which mirrors Rule 5.1 and confirms that transfer is automatic upon notice. Both rules use the same mandatory language and call for nearly identical procedures.

Finally, the court reviewed the 2019 amendment history. The prior version of the rule required a party to file a motion to consolidate with the juvenile court, which would then rule on the motion. The current version eliminated this motion requirement, making the transfer automatic upon notice alone.

Conclusion

Rule 5.1 establishes a clear and mandatory procedure. When family law and dependency proceedings concern the same parties, transfer to juvenile court is automatic upon notice to the family court. The family court has no discretion to deny the transfer. Once transferred, the juvenile court handles all child-related issues until the dependency is dismissed or the juvenile court defers jurisdiction back to the family division.

The takeaway from Magee v. Olson is straightforward: if you have simultaneous family law and dependency proceedings involving the same children, simply providing notice under Rule 5.1(a)(1) triggers automatic transfer to juvenile court. The family court cannot block this transfer, although the juvenile court retains discretion to refer matters back under subsection (b) when appropriate. This automatic transfer prevents jurisdictional limbo and ensures one court handles all child-related issues during dependency proceedings.

Sources:

[1] Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 5.1.

[2] Magee v. Olson, 574 P.3d 1189 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025)

Author:

Ryan T. McGuire is a law clerk at Woodnick Law PLLC and a second-year student at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. He leverages his master’s degree in philosophy to produce thorough legal research and writing, with a focus on family law matters. Ryan brings a strong foundation in legal analysis and academic interests spanning family and criminal law.