SB1329 creates a new civil cause of action in Arizona family court cases involving legal decision-making or parenting time. It allows a parent to sue court-appointed “professional personnel” if that person deviates from the ethics, standards, or licensing requirements imposed by their licensing agency. The bill applies to professionals appointed by the court in these matters, which can include evaluators, investigators, or other court-connected experts depending on the case and appointment.
The bill also sets a four-year statute of limitations, requiring any lawsuit under this section to be filed within four years after the cause of action accrues. In practical terms, the measure adds a liability pathway for parents who believe a court-appointed professional acted outside professional standards in a custody or parenting-time proceeding.
Impact
SB1329 would amend Title 25 of the Arizona Revised Statutes by adding section 25-419, expanding potential civil liability in family law proceedings. It affects court-appointed professional personnel involved in legal decision-making and parenting-time cases by exposing them to lawsuits for alleged departures from licensing-based ethics and standards. The bill does not change custody standards directly, but it could influence how professionals conduct evaluations, recommendations, and other court-appointed work in domestic relations cases.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed-to-supportive treatment in the Senate, advancing through Judiciary and Elections on a narrow 4-3 vote and later passing third reading 16-12. The committee and floor votes suggest the measure had enough support to move forward but also drew meaningful opposition. With no transcript available, the recorded votes are the main indicator of sentiment, and they show a divided chamber rather than broad consensus.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether the bill appropriately holds court-appointed professionals accountable or instead creates additional litigation risk that could discourage qualified experts from serving in family court. Supporters would view the measure as a remedy for parents harmed by unethical or noncompliant professional conduct, while opponents may argue that existing licensing and disciplinary systems already address misconduct and that a private right of action could increase costs, delay proceedings, and chill professional participation. The narrow committee vote and split floor vote indicate these accountability-versus-liability concerns were central.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 33; Title 36; Title 49; Title 52; Title 56; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to professional counselors.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 33; Title 36; Title 49; Title 52; Title 56; Title 63 and Title 68, relative to professional counselors.
Occupations: individual licensing and registration; licensure of professional guardians and conservators; require. Amends sec. 303a of 1980 PA 299 (MCL 339.303a) & adds art. 14A.