Shah v. Vakharwala

IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Matter of: ARPITA SHAH, Petitioner/Appellee, v. PURVIN VAKHARWALA, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 17-0129 FC FILED 1-11-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC 2016-096043 The Honorable Jerry Bernstein, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Collins & Collins, LLP, Phoenix By C. Robert Collins, Jonathan S. Collins Counsel for Respondent/Appellant SHAH v. VAKHARWALA Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Patricia A. Orozco1 joined. C A M P B E L L, Judge: ¶1 Purvin Vakharwala appeals the superior court’s grant of an order of protection in favor of his ex-wife Arpita Shah and argues that to violate an Arizona order of protection, the violation must occur within Arizona. For the reasons explained, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Shah and Vakharwala have one child in common, a son. In 2015 the couple obtained a divorce in Georgia. Shah later moved to Arizona with the child. On November 24, 2015, she obtained an Arizona order of protection against Vakharwala, who remained in Georgia. The 2015 order of protection included the following restriction: “[Vakharwala] shall have no contact with [Shah] except through attorneys, legal process, court hearings, and as follows: . . . in writing by U.S. Mail only to discuss the parties’ son. [He] [a]lso may contact [Shah’s] attorney.” Based on the 2015 order, the Georgia court amended the decree to include the no contact terms but also to allow Vakharwala some parenting time, including permitting him to contact their son through a video chat service with specified restrictions.2 ¶3 On November 18, 2016, in anticipation of the expiration of the 2015 order, Shah petitioned for an ex parte order of protection. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-3602(K) (an order of protection expires one year after service). In her verified petition, Shah listed three separate incidents 1The Honorable Patricia A. Orozco, Retired Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution. 2For example, the decree stated Vakharwala may use video chat to contact their son, but “[s]hall not initiate multiple communications in the event the first attempt is unsuccessful, but instead shall be free to make one follow up call, thereafter awaiting the child’s return call.” 2 SHAH v. VAKHARWALA Opinion of the Court evidencing acts of domestic violence. First, in a November 21, 2015 domestic violence incident, he physically removed the child from Shah and attempted to take him out of the state of Arizona. He was subsequently charged with assault. Second, between June 2, 2016 and June 16, 2016, he violated the 2015 order when he contacted her through video chat. Third, Vakharwala contacted Arizona law enforcement on 15 separate occasions in the preceding 12 months with allegations against Shah ranging from custodial interference to violations of court orders. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals