Daniel J Siegel, PC

01/07/2026

Proud to announce that I was recognized as a Top Attorney In the Southwest. Handling all aspects of family law. Strategic counsel for life's biggest transitions. Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. 602-274-1099

Daniel J. Siegel - recognized in "Top Attorneys In The Southwest" , SL, April 2025

11/15/2023

As a divorce lawyer, I understand that the holiday season can be a difficult time for many families. With Thanksgiving just around the corner, it’s important to be mindful of the unique challenges that divorced or separated parents may face.
Here are some tips for co-parenting during the Thanksgiving holiday:
1. Be flexible: The holidays can be a busy time, and it’s important to be flexible when it comes to scheduling. If you and your co-parent are unable to agree on a specific schedule, consider alternating holidays from year to year.
2. Communicate: Communication is key when it comes to co-parenting. Make sure to keep your co-parent informed of your plans for the holiday, and be open to compromise if necessary.
3. Focus on the children: Remember that the holiday season is about spending time with loved ones, especially children. Make sure to prioritize your children’s needs and create a holiday experience that is enjoyable for them.
4. Create new traditions: After a divorce, it’s important to create new traditions that work for your family. Consider starting a new tradition that you and your children can enjoy together.
5. Seek support: The holiday season can be a difficult time, especially after a divorce. Don’t be afraid to seek support from friends, family, or a therapist if you need it.

Remember, the holiday season is about spending time with loved ones and expressing gratitude for the blessings in our lives. With a little bit of planning and communication, co-parenting during the Thanksgiving holiday can be a positive experience for everyone involved. Happy Thanksgiving!

09/15/2021

Income for Child Support Purposes
The Arizona Child Support Guidelines refers to income for child support purposes as “Gross income includes income from any source, and may include, but is not limited to, income from salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, annuities, capital gains, social security benefits (Subject to Section 26), workers compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, recurring gifts, prizes, and spousal maintenance. When determining income from self-employment, the Arizona Child Support Guidelines § 5(C), establishes that “gross income means gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to produce income. Ordinary and necessary expenses do not include amounts determined by the court to be inappropriate for determining gross income for purposes of child support.”

Daniel J. Siegel is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of Arizona. For help with any family law related matter, call Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. at 602-274-1099.
This article is for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Readers should not act upon information contained herein without first seeking the advice of a qualified attorney. Please contact Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. with any questions, 602-274-1099.

03/16/2021

I am proud to announce that I was recertified by the State Bar of Arizona as a Specialist in Family Law!!

Daniel J. Siegel is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of Arizona. For help with any family law related matter, call Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. at 602-274-1099.

This article is for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Readers should not act upon information contained herein without first seeking the advice of a qualified attorney. Please contact Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. with any questions, 602-274-1099.

02/22/2021

Pursuant to Femiano v. Maust, 248 Ariz. 613, 463 P.3d 237 (Div. 1 2020), when a spouse signs a disclaimer deed to real property, but the marital community pays all costs associated with purchasing and improving that separate real property, any appreciation in value and the resulting increase in equity is fully attributable to the community, and the community is thus entitled to an equitable lien for the full increase in equity.
Daniel J. Siegel is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of Arizona. For help with any family law related matter, call Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. at 602-274-1099.
This article is for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Readers should not act upon information contained herein without first seeking the advice of a qualified attorney. Please contact Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. with any questions, 602-274-1099.

02/15/2021

This is an update from a previous post regarding the role of the courts when making parenting decisions. The law has reverted back to where it was before. In the case of Paul E. v. Courtney F., the Arizona Supreme Court has decided that “…if the court awards joint legal decision-making authority, the court is authorized to resolve any conflict. The court is not limited to merely vesting one parent with sole legal decision-making authority on the disputed issue….” Accordingly, in Arizona, judges can make decisions and order parents to do things that they believe are in the best interest of the child. The court no longer has to defer and give one of the parents the right to make the decision on a disputed issue. The judge can make the decision and order the parents to follow it.
Daniel J. Siegel is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of Arizona. For help with any family law related matter, call Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. at 602-274-1099.
This article is for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Readers should not act upon information contained herein without first seeking the advice of a qualified attorney. Please contact Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. with any questions, 602-274-1099.

11/26/2020

Happy Thanksgiving 🦃

06/29/2020

May I move from my residence with the child? (A.R.S. §408)

A. If by written agreement or court order both parents are entitled to joint legal decision-making or parenting time and both parents reside in the state, at least forty-five days' advance written notice shall be provided to the other parent before a parent may do either of the following:
1. Relocate the child outside the state.
2. Relocate the child more than one hundred miles within the state.
B. The notice required by this section shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, or pursuant to the Arizona rules of family law procedure. The court shall sanction a parent who, without good cause, does not comply with the notification requirements of this subsection. The court may impose a sanction that will affect legal decision-making or parenting time only in accordance with the child's best interests.
C. Within thirty days after notice is made the nonmoving parent may petition the court to prevent relocation of the child. After expiration of this time any petition or other application to prevent relocation of the child may be granted only on a showing of good cause. This subsection does not prohibit a parent who is seeking to relocate the child from petitioning the court for a hearing, on notice to the other parent, to determine the appropriateness of a relocation that may adversely affect the other parent's legal decision-making or parenting time rights.
D. Subsection A of this section does not apply if provision for relocation of a child has been made by a court order or a written agreement of the parties that is dated within one year of the proposed relocation of the child.
E. If a child is relocated pursuant to this section, unless otherwise ordered by the court, all parties must continue to comply with current court orders, regardless of distance moved or notice required.

Daniel J. Siegel is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of Arizona. For help with any family law related matter, call Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. at 602-274-1099.
This article is for informational purposes only. The information contained herein is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Readers should not act upon information contained herein without first seeking the advice of a qualified attorney. Please contact Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. with any questions, 602-274-1099

05/22/2020

What can I do if my spouse (or former spouse) is abusive? (A.R.S. §13-3602)

A City Court Judge or Justice of the Peace in Justice Court can issue an Order of Protection to prevent your spouse or former spouse from harming you or your children. A Superior Court Judge may also issue an order of protection. If a Petition for Dissolution has already been filed then the Order of Protection must come from the Superior Court. In addition to requiring the person to stay away from you, the order may also prohibit the other person from going to certain locations, e.g. home, school, and work. If there is a divorce or custody case pending, when the Court decides the issues of parenting time and legal decision making, the Court will consider any evidence of domestic abuse. The Court shall consider evidence of domestic abuse as being contrary to the best interests of the child (A.R.S. 25-403.03(B)). All courts have the forms available that are needed to request an order of Protection. These forms are free to the public.
When a Petition for Dissolution or Petition for Legal Separation is filed a Preliminary Injunction is automatically issued against both spouses. This order prohibits both spouses from harassing or disturbing each other, in addition to other restrictions concerning property and children.

Daniel J. Siegel is a Certified Specialist in Family Law by the State Bar of Arizona. For help with any family law related matter, call Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. at 602-274-1099.
This article is for informational purposes only.

The information contained herein is not legal advice, nor is it intended to be. Readers should not act upon information contained herein without first seeking the advice of a qualified attorney. Please contact Daniel J. Siegel, P.C. with any questions, 602-274-1099

05/13/2020

Courts are still open. Below is an excerpt from the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 2020-75 on how the courts will utilize technology to minimize in-person contact:

II. TO USE TECHNOLOGY TO MINIMIZE IN-PERSON PROCEEDINGS:

1. Proceedings in all Arizona appellate, superior, justice, juvenile, and municipal courts and before the presiding disciplinary judge may be held by teleconferencing or video conferencing, consistent with core constitutional rights.

2. During Phases I and II, judicial leadership should limit in-person contact as much as possible by using available technologies, including alternative means of filing, teleconferencing, video conferencing, and use of email and text messages to reasonably ensure the health and safety of all participants.

3. Judges may hold ex-parte and contested hearings on orders of protection electronically.

4. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of available online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms to resolve cases.

5. Judicial leadership may authorize the use of electronic, digital, or other means regularly used in court proceedings to create a verbatim record, except in grand jury proceedings.

6. When the public is limited from attending in-person proceedings, beginning July 1, 2020, to the extent logistically possible, the presiding judge of the superior court shall provide public access by video or audio to civil and criminal court proceedings typically open to the public to maximize the public's ability to observe court proceedings. The presiding judge or single judge of a limited jurisdiction court should make video and audio proceedings, excluding small claims cases, available to the public to the greatest extent possible.
The presiding judge of the superior court should also list the availability of video and audio proceedings on the AZCourt site.

7. The 100-mile distance requirement for a limited jurisdiction court to accept a telephonic plea under Rule 17.1 (f) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure is suspended through December 31, 2020.

8. Clerks may attend court proceedings by teleconferencing or video conferencing to comply with A.R.S. § 12-283(A)(l).

9. Title 36 Chapter 5, A.R.S. matters are confidential and not open to persons other than the parties, witnesses, and their respective counsel. When these proceedings are not conducted in-person, judicial leadership must use technology in a manner that protects the patient's rights to privacy and confidentiality.

10. The judge in each proceeding conducted using video-conferencing may limit and permit recording as appropriate to apply the policies provided in Rule 122, Rules of the Supreme Court, to those proceedings.

04/08/2020

Here is a link to the recently issued Arizona Statewide Guidelines For Parenting Time During the COVID-19 Pandemic:

03/19/2020

Stay safe out there! Here is a link to Johns Hopkins University Corona Virus Resource Center with some good information:

Johns Hopkins experts in global public health, infectious disease, and emergency preparedness have been at the forefront of the international response to COVID-19.