Arizona Court rules on multiple tort claims alleging wrongdoing by married parties. 

In Berk, Wife made claims against Husband for "Consipracy to Commit False Imprisonment", "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Stress", "Libel", "Slander", "Invasion of Privacy", and "Loss of Consortium".

Apparently the underlying situation involved Husband's attempt to conduct an intervention for Wife' benefit,which subsequentlyeding up in his having the Wife committed to a mental health facility for observation, and his alleged discussions with various individuals in the Phoenix Arizona "Jewish Community" about Wife.

The court, in ruling on competing summary judgment motions, found that Husband's attempts to lure Wife into an intervention was not actionable as a consipracy to commit false imprisonment because she was never physically restrained by contact, and that "words, actions and body language" alone was not enouph to make a claim.  Neither was the intervention and subsequent action by Husband to take Wife to a psychiatric facilitiy actionalbe as an intentional infliction of emotional distress because it was not "outrageous" or "intended to cause emotional distress".

Similarly, the Husband's filing of an Application for Involuntary Evaluation and Application for Emergency Admission was found not defamatory and libelous because, in part, documents containing reference to Wife were filed in litigation proceedings are entitled were thus entitled to "absolute privilege". And, eventhough it was alleged that Husband talked to "about 30 people about Munchausen's Proxy (MBP), without publication, no slander action could be brought.  And again, because of lack of proof of any publication, allegations that "falsely represented [Wife's] mental state to friends, colleagues and the Jewish community" was not actionable as an invasion of privacy.

Finally, no loss of consortium claim existed even though Wife was found to be separated from the parties' children during her stay at the psychiatric care facility.

There were more claims from Husband against Wife as well as claims against a third-party, which are set out in the full text of the opinion, Berk v. Berk.

Here is a topic that is often considered the absolute worst, orders of protection in Arizona family law cases where kids are involved.

First, a disclaimer: Some Orders of Protection have validity, and some actually work. There are people who seriously need to be protected from abusive or threatening individuals, and are at imminent risk of harm. Obtaining an Order of Protection does work if the person that you are attempting to restrain has some remnant of respect for the law, or fear of repercussion -- like arrest or imprisonment -- if he or she violates the order. And of course, an Order of Protection can assist responding police offcers in assessing and then directing what should be done temporarily while at the scene.

But improperly obtained Orders of Protection are a whole different story, and unfortunately are just as frequently the norm, and they hurt everyone.

In meritorious cases, family court judges can become so focused on the underlying motives for the requests for Orders of Protection that at-risk people may be denied the protection they need, sometimes with horrific consequences. It happens.

On the other hand, there are many instances when bogus Orders of Protections are obtained for use in manipulating other issues within a divorce or family law dispute.  For instance, a respondent is cut off from the kids, suddenly and indefinitely -- with little or no physical, telephone, written or even electronic contact -- while the case gets adjourned ad nauseum, based on allegations he or she never even had a chance to contest in court prior to the issuance of the Order of Protection.

As for the kids in these cases -- usually they are confused by the abrupt disappearance of one parent. If they are lucky, they won't get poisoned too much by the petitioner or his/her friends and relatives. However, there is a good chance they will.  To make matters worse, therapists often get involved and join the gang of total strangers (judges, law guardians, child protective services, forensic evaluators, etc. etc.) now intruding on the family without much investigation or information being obtained first.

Also, the petitioner, who thinks he or she has just scored big-time in the impending custody battle, may be completely oblivious to a bunch of problems that can result.  For instance, he or she may not have noticed the damage just caused his/her family - which no custody award in his/her favor will ever erase. And he or she runs the risk that a very patient respondent -- one who's prepared to ride the waves of mostly negative rulings for a while, and who's hired a good lawyer - will eventually expose the phony claims. If the respondent has a fair amount of facts in his/her favor, s/he may even prove it's the petitioner who's really harming the family. Boom. Custody unexpectedly awarded to the respondent.

All of us at NGS wish Rachel R. James, Esq., a divorce and family law lawyer with Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC, well in her serving as the Chair of the Race Judicata Event sponsored by Maricopa County Bar Association (MCBA) this coming Sunday, October 3, 2010.