In Hayes v. Continental Insurance Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 273, 872 P.2d 668, 677 (1994), the Arizona Supreme Court said that a law should not be interpreted "to deny, preempt, or abrogate common-law damage actions unless the statute's text or history shows an explicit legislative intent to reach so severe a result." The Hayes court noted that "it is, after all, easy enough for the legislature to state that a certain statute does or does not create, preempt, or abrogate a private right of action." Id. It therefore reaffirmed "the principle that ambiguous statutes will be construed as not forbidding or preempting judicial jurisdiction or common-law actions." Id. at 274, 872 P.2d at 678. As a result, "if the legislature intends to deny, abrogate, or preempt, it must clearly say so." Id. Nothing in section 28-3160 indicates that its provisions are intended to replace, abrogate, or preempt the family purpose doctrine.