Appeal
from the Superior Court in Gila County No. DO201800239 The
Honorable Joe A. Albo Jr., Judge Pro Tempore
Crider
Law Firm PLLC, Mesa By Kay A. Jones and Brad J. Crider
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
Collins & Collins LLP, Payson By Joseph E. Collins
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
Presiding Judge Staring authored the opinion of the Court, in
which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
OPINION
STARING, PRESIDING JUDGE.
¶1
James McCarthy appeals the superior court's order
affirming an order of protection in favor of Aeyim McCarthy.
For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
Factual
and Procedural Background
¶2
In July 2018, Aeyim filed a petition for order of protection
against James in the Payson Justice Court. The justice court
issued an ex parte order of protection that same day,
ordering James to have "no contact whatsoever" with
Aeyim. James requested a hearing on the order, but the
justice court cancelled the hearing after learning Aeyim had
commenced divorce proceedings in Gila County Superior Court.
The justice court transferred the order of protection
proceedings to the superior court pursuant to Rule 34, Ariz.
R. Protective Order P., and A.R.S. § 13-3602(P).
¶3
Once transferred, James again requested a hearing on the
order of protection. At the hearing, the superior court noted
it was "only handling the Order of Protection this date
and nothing will be addressed in the related family law
matter." Afterwards, the court issued an under
advisement ruling that kept the order of protection in
effect. The court also issued a separate signed order and
stated that it was entered pursuant to Rule 54(c), Ariz. R.
Civ. P., and that it "resolves all claims in this
proceeding and no further matters remain pending." This
appeal followed.
Discussion
¶4
Although neither party has raised the issue of jurisdiction,
we have "an independent duty to examine whether we have
jurisdiction over matters on appeal." Camasura v.
Camasura, 238 Ariz. 179, ¶ 5 (App. 2015).
¶5
Arizona law requires that, if there is a pending family law
case in the superior court between the parties to an order of
protection matter, the order of protection matter is to be
transferred to the superior court and merged into, or
"docketed in," the superior court case. In part,
§ 13-3602(P) provides:
After issuance of an order of protection, if the municipal
court or justice court determines that an action for . . .
dissolution of marriage is pending between the parties, [it]
shall stop further proceedings in the action and forward all
papers, together with a certified copy of docket entries or
any other record in the action, to the superior court where
they shall be docketed in the pending superior court action .
. . .
Once
such a case is transferred, the Arizona Rules of Family Law
Procedure apply to the joined cases. Ariz. R. Protective
Order P. 2 ("The Arizona Rules of Family Law
Procedure apply to protective order matters heard in
conjunction with pending family law cases."). Thus,
because the order of protection proceeding was transferred to
the superior court in accord with § 13-3602(P), to be
heard "in conjunction with" the parties'
pending divorce proceedings, the Arizona Rules of Family Law
Procedure applied here. See id.; see also Ariz. R.
Protective Order P. 34(a)(1); Vera v. Rogers, 246
Ariz. 30, ...