Appellate Victories

In re the matter of S.B and J.K.: Trial and Appellate Victories, Affirming Custody and Fees Award: After more than three years of false allegations of abuse, supervised parenting time, and a psychosexual evaluation, our client (Father) prevailed at trial. The Court found no evidence of abuse, granted Father joint legal decision-making with final authority, implemented a step-up plan to a full 5-2-2-5 unsupervised parenting schedule, found Mother in civil contempt for repeatedly violating court-ordered visitation, and awarded over $55,000 in attorneys’ fees based on Mother’s unreasonable litigation conduct. The Court of Appeals affirmed every aspect of the trial court’s ruling, including the substantial fee award despite our client’s greater resources, holding that willful, unreasonable litigation conduct has consequences regardless of financial disparity.

In re the matter of K.L.: Appellate Reversal and Termination of Parental Rights: The juvenile court found that Father had abandoned the child, having no contact since May 2022 and failing to comply with court-ordered drug testing, but denied our client, Mother’s, petition to terminate his parental rights, citing the child’s best interests. On appeal, we successfully argued that the juvenile court misapplied the legal standard, improperly relied on Father’s speculative intent to reconnect despite no existing relationship, and based its ruling on incorrect facts. In a rare outcome, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the termination, finding “no evidence that preserving parental rights would be in the Child’s best interest” and paving the way for adoption by the child’s stepfather.

In re the matter L.L.: Trial and Appellate Victories in Dissolution Action: After successfully obtaining a default Decree of Legal Separation for our client, Wife, the opposing party, Husband, sought to set aside the default and relitigate asset division, debt division, spousal maintenance, and child support. The trial court denied Husband’s arguments, finding it lacked authority to redivide what was already divided in a valid Decree. Husband appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding there was no excusable neglect justifying reopening the Decree and that “no reasonably prudent person would have followed Husband’s example.”

In re the matter K.C.: Trial and Appellate Victories, Affirming Spousal Maintenance and Fees: In this contentious dissolution, the opposing party, Father, took unreasonable positions throughout litigation, contesting paternity of a child born during the marriage, refusing financial support while removing our client, Mother, from the marital residence, and arguing against both child support and spousal maintenance. At trial, the Court awarded our client current and past child support, spousal maintenance, and $20,000 in attorneys’ fees. The opposing party appealed the rulings on spousal maintenance and fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the spousal maintenance award, dismissed the attorneys’ fees challenge for lack of jurisdiction due to the opposing party’s failure to file an amended notice of appeal, and awarded our client her attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal.

In re the matter K.W.: Appellate Reversal of Custody and Fees: Our client, the primary residential parent with sole legal decision-making under the original divorce decree, which confirmed a significant history of domestic violence, was ordered by the trial court to surrender the children and return them from Idaho to Arizona, lost legal decision-making, and was ordered to pay thousands in attorneys’ fees. On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s ruling was fatally flawed because it found no domestic violence had ever occurred despite the parties’ own decree confirming otherwise. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacated all of the trial court’s findings, including the award of attorneys’ fees, and remanded for a new trial.

In re the matter T.W.: Appellate Reversal of Default Decree: In this divorce case, the trial court entered a default decree against our client despite his having filed an appearance and response, and despite opposing counsel misrepresenting the date and time of the default hearing and the court admitting on the record that it failed to provide notice. On appeal, the Court vacated the default decree, remanded the case for further proceedings, and allowed our client to participate in an equitable division of the parties’ substantial assets.

In re the matter J.B.: Appellate Affirmance of Supervised Parenting Time: After our client’s daughter made disturbing disclosures, we obtained emergency temporary orders placing Father on supervised parenting time. Following multiple evidentiary hearings, forensic interviews, and a polygraph, the trial court maintained supervised visitation. Father appealed, alleging unethical conduct by our team. After extensive briefing and oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling in its entirety, preserving the protections in place for the child, and finding no unethical conduct by our team. 

In re the matter of R.L.: Special Action and Child’s Name Change: After we successfully obtained a name change order at the Temporary Orders Hearing, changing the child’s surname to match our client’s, opposing counsel filed a Special Action with the Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the order and stay its enforcement. We submitted our Response requesting dismissal, and after oral argument, the Court of Appeals declined to accept jurisdiction over the Special Action and denied the Motion to Stay as moot, as the birth certificate had already been amended.

In re the matter C.F.: Special Action, Appellate Victory, and Dismissal of Grandmother’s Petition: After Mother’s death, Grandmother obtained primary care of our client’s daughter, and Father had not seen the child in over a year. When the trial court incorrectly ruled that the child should remain in Grandmother’s primary care, we filed a Special Action with the Court of Appeals and prevailed. The case was remanded, and the new Judge completely dismissed Grandmother’s petition, placing the child entirely in our client, Father’s care.

In re the matter of A.K.: International Custody Jurisdiction, and Appellate Victory: In this five-year international custody case, our client (Mother) fled a violent relationship in Tunisia during COVID-19, bringing her young child to Arizona on a repatriation flight. Father contested Arizona’s jurisdiction at every level: the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and the Arizona Supreme Court, seeking to have the case heard in Tunisia, a non-Hague Convention country whose laws would have forced Mother back into the abusive relationship. The Court of Appeals established new Arizona case law in the Antonetti v. Westerhausen published opinion, finding Father’s claim that he had no reason to believe the relocation was permanent to be “patently unreasonable,” and awarding Mother her appellate attorneys’ fees. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Father’s Petition for Review. After we retained an international law expert to detail the risks of parenting time in Tunisia, Father agreed to grant Mother sole legal decision-making authority and no parenting time, but then refused to sign. We filed the agreement without his signature, and the Court signed Mother’s proposed parenting plan, awarding her sole legal decision-making and Father zero parenting time.

Interstate/International Custody and Jurisdiction

In re the matter of A.K.: International Custody Jurisdiction, and Appellate Victory: In this five-year international custody case, our client (Mother) fled a violent relationship in Tunisia during COVID-19, bringing her young child to Arizona on a repatriation flight. Father contested Arizona’s jurisdiction at every level: the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and the Arizona Supreme Court, seeking to have the case heard in Tunisia, a non-Hague Convention country whose laws would have forced Mother back into the abusive relationship. The Court of Appeals established new Arizona case law in the Antonetti v. Westerhausen published opinion, finding Father’s claim that he had no reason to believe the relocation was permanent to be “patently unreasonable,” and awarding Mother her appellate attorneys’ fees. The Arizona Supreme Court denied Father’s Petition for Review. After we retained an international law expert to detail the risks of parenting time in Tunisia, Father agreed to grant Mother sole legal decision-making authority and no parenting time, but then refused to sign. We filed the agreement without his signature, and the Court signed Mother’s proposed parenting plan, awarding her sole legal decision-making and Father zero parenting time.

In re the matter of D.S.: Interstate Custody and Jurisdiction: In this complex interstate custody dispute, Mother absconded with our client’s (Father) twins to Pennsylvania and obtained an ex parte order there without disclosing the outstanding Arizona case. We filed an Expedited Motion to Set a UCCJEA Conference within 10 hours, and Mother was ultimately sanctioned and arrested until the children were returned. Mother then challenged our client’s paternity, which the Court denied, and Maternal Grandmother intervened seeking visitation. At the final trial, the Court found Mother not credible, denied Grandmother’s visitation request, and awarded Father final decision-making authority, primary residential parent status, child support, and attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of S.M.: Interstate Custody and Jurisdiction: In this interstate custody dispute between Arizona and Montana, Father kept our client’s (Mother) six-year-old son during summer parenting time and refused to return him, filing a Petition to Establish in Montana. Relying on our firm’s published Court of Appeals opinion in Antonetti v. Westerhausen, we argued that the child’s summer visit was only a temporary absence from Arizona, which had become his home state. We filed a Petition to Establish and a Motion for Temporary Orders in Arizona. Both the Montana and Arizona Courts agreed that Arizona had jurisdiction, and Father consented to the child’s immediate return to Mother in Arizona with Father exercising parenting time during school breaks.

In re the matter of J.A.: UCCJEA Jurisdiction and Temporary Orders: Mother withheld the parties’ two-year-old child and relocated to California, where she filed a competing divorce case and obtained an emergency order the day after learning of our Arizona filing. At the Temporary Orders Hearing, the Court held an impromptu UCCJEA conference and determined that Arizona had jurisdiction despite muddied jurisdictional facts. The Court noted that “most of the issues seem to be coming from Mother and expressed concern about her withholding. 

In re the matter of S.S.: Emergency Jurisdiction, Order of Protection Dismissal, and Temporary Orders: Mother falsely accused our client (Father) of sexually abusing their infant child, absconded with the children to Arizona, obtained an Order of Protection, and initiated DCS and Texas DFPS investigations, all of which were unsubstantiated with no charges filed. Father had no contact with or information about the children for over a year. At the hearing, we moved for a directed verdict on the Order of Protection, which the Court granted, dismissing it entirely. When it was revealed that Mother had relocated to another county, we successfully argued for emergency jurisdiction. The Court ordered immediate equal parenting time, awarded Father final decision-making authority, appointed a Best Interest Attorney at Mother’s expense, and warned that any failure by Mother to comply would result in an immediate arrest warrant and a warrant to take physical custody of the children.

In re the matter of D.K.: Interstate Modification and Relocation: In this interstate custody modification, Mother asked our client (Father) to take their son from Arizona due to her declining mental health, then took the child back with the police two weeks later. We filed an emergency motion, and the Court granted a temporary relocation to Texas with Mother limited to supervised parenting time. At the final trial, the Court found that Texas was now the child’s home and awarded Father primary residential parent status in Texas, with Mother receiving a modified parenting schedule at her expense.

In re the matter of E.O.: Interstate Establishment and Emergency Temporary Orders: In this establishment case involving three children split between Arizona and California, Mother retained the oldest daughter in California and enrolled her in school without our client, Father’s consent after a summer visit. We filed an emergency motion seeking the daughter’s return to Arizona, where she had thrived academically while living with Father. The Court awarded Father final-say authority for legal decision-making, ordered Mother to return the oldest daughter to Arizona, and designated Father as primary residential parent for all three children, with Mother’s parenting time limited to visits in Arizona with 30 days’ advance notice.

In re the matter of R.E.: Temporary Orders Defense: In this interstate custody matter, our client (Father) held sole legal decision-making and primary custody. During Mother’s one-week summer visit, she refused to return the child, filing false allegations in Illinois that the child was suicidal, not enrolled in school, and never received medical care. The Illinois Court denied the emergency and declined jurisdiction. Mother refiled in Arizona using the same allegations, but and our Arizona Judge denied her ex parte emergency, denied her temporary requests after she failed to provide any supporting documentation, and dismissed her Petition.

In re the matter of R.C.: Emergency Temporary Orders: In this long-distance custody case, our client (Father) had not seen his three-year-old twins for over six months due to Mother’s withholding. Mother sought sole legal decision-making and supervised visits, alleging physical abuse and firearms threats. The Court rejected Mother’s allegations, found Father to be a safe and capable parent, and awarded equal parenting time on a two-weeks-on/two-weeks-off schedule across state lines, joint legal decision-making, and immediate exchange of the children.

In re the matter of J.N.: Temporary Orders in Interstate Dissolution: Wife left California for Arizona with the parties’ two-year-old son under the pretense of needing space, then heavily restricted Father’s parenting time and filed for dissolution seeking sole legal decision-making, primary custody, spousal maintenance, child support, and half of $181,000 from a joint account. At the Temporary Orders Hearing, the Court agreed with us on every issue, awarding joint legal decision-making, equal parenting time on a month-on/month-off basis, attributing income to Wife at her prior hourly rate after she admitted she followed her attorney’s advice not to seek employment, denying spousal maintenance, and declining to order return of the funds from the joint account based on our separate-property arguments.

In re the matter of T.N.: Interstate Custody and Attorneys’ Fees: Mother absconded with the children out of state, and we tracked her down. The Court designated our client (Father) as the primary residential parent and limited Mother’s parenting time to Arizona only. The Court also awarded our client $8,000 in attorneys’ fees over Mother’s objections.

Relocation

In re the matter of K.M.: Relocation: In this highly contested relocation case, our client (Mother) faced prior temporary orders finding she acted unreasonably and in bad faith, with Father awarded primary residential status and Mother limited to weekends only. Over the course of a year, we deposed Father and documented numerous inconsistencies in his discovery responses and financial affidavits. At trial, we impeached Father multiple times, and opposing counsel unexpectedly withdrew, citing “ethical considerations.” The Court issued a detailed final order that entirely reversed the previous orders in Mother’s favor.

In re the matter of J.F.: Emergency Relocation to Texas: In this interstate relocation case, our client (Father) sought to move his three children from New Mexico to Texas due to Mother’s neglect of their dental and mental health needs. Despite the Court initially denying relocation at temporary orders and a Court-Appointed Advisor expressing uncertainty about a custody change, the six-year-old child pointed a knife at his own chest during Father’s parenting time and stated he would rather die than return to Mother’s home. We filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders, and the Court granted immediate temporary relocation of all three children to Texas, with Mother’s parenting time limited to supervised visits in Texas. The children are now enrolled in school in Texas and receiving mental health services with Father.

In re the matter of C.M.: Relocation Defense and Establishment: Our client (Father) contested Mother’s relocation of their three-year-old son to Washington. At trial, the primary issue was whether the child would reside in Arizona with Father or in Washington with Mother. The Court denied the relocation, ordered the child to remain in Arizona with Father, and established a long-distance parenting schedule with Mother. The Court also granted joint legal decision-making, declining Mother’s request for final decision-making authority.

In re the matter of D.P.: Relocation Prevention: Our client (Father) filed a Petition to Prevent Relocation after Mother sought permission to move the parties’ child to Illinois. Mother requested a long-distance parenting plan and child support. At the evidentiary hearing, the Court found that Mother misled the Court about the strength of her alleged job offer in Illinois, that the child had lived in Arizona his entire life with strong relationships on both sides of the family, and that Father was slightly more likely to allow the child frequent, meaningful, and continuing contact with the other parent. The Court granted Father’s Petition to Prevent Relocation and kept the child in Arizona.

In re the matter of A.G.: Relocation Defense, Final Say, and Attorneys’ Fees: Mother filed a Petition to Modify seeking to relocate the parties’ child to Safford, Arizona. The Court found that the child was thriving in Phoenix, excelling in a gifted program, progressing in speech therapy, and free of the severe asthma he experienced in Safford, and that Mother repeatedly mischaracterized facts to the Court, including intentionally inaccurate statements about Father’s immigration status and the risk of him fleeing to Mexico with the child. The Court denied Mother’s request to relocate, awarded joint legal decision-making with our client (Father) exercising final decision-making authority, designated Father as primary residential parent, and ordered Mother to pay Father child support. The Court also awarded Father his attorneys’ fees based on Mother’s unreasonable litigation conduct.

In re the matter of J.D.: Establishment, Default Trial, and Relocation: Our client (Father) had no knowledge of his daughter’s or Mother’s whereabouts for several years. After conducting skip traces and obtaining alternative service, the Court set the matter for trial by default. Mother appeared virtually at trial and requested a continuance, but the Court denied the request and proceeded. Through testimony, we confirmed the child was not enrolled in or attending school. The Court ordered Mother to relocate back to Arizona, awarded equal parenting time, granted joint legal decision-making with Father exercising final say on school choice, and reduced child support from $1,020 to $204 per month.

In re the matter of C.G.: Modification and Long-Distance Parenting Time: Our client (Father) sought equal parenting time with his four-year-old son after Mother relocated to Arizona and attempted to alienate Father from the child. Immediately before the hearing, Father was diagnosed with late-stage cancer, which Mother attempted to use as a basis to reduce his parenting time. Despite Father’s diagnosis and inability to immediately relocate, the Court awarded equal parenting time on a two-weeks-on/two-weeks-off long-distance schedule commencing immediately, transitioning to week-on/week-off upon Father’s relocation to Arizona. Father, who had not seen his son since the summer, was reunited with him.

In re the matter of M.W.: Relief from Judgment and Relocation Defense: After the Court initially granted Father’s request to relocate the children out of state, we filed for relief from the judgment. The Court granted our motion, recognizing its previous ruling was incorrect, and reversed the relocation order, keeping the children in Arizona with our client (Mother) as the primary residential parent.

High-Asset/Complex Dissolution and Property

In re the matter of S.F.: Contempt and Enforcement: In this high-asset, complex divorce, we obtained a $25,000 per month Spousal Maintenance award for our client at the Temporary Orders Hearing. The opposing party then improperly withdrew $350,000 from the parties’ joint account and refused to pay the court-ordered Spousal Maintenance. We filed a Petition to Enforce and for Contempt and prevailed on all fronts: the Court found the opposing party in Contempt, ordered him to pay $56,567.00 in outstanding Spousal Maintenance, $175,000 representing one-half of the funds improperly withdrawn, and a $20,000 purge payment.

In re the matter of N.D.: Complex Dissolution and Settlement: In this high-asset dissolution pending since 2022, the opposing party, Father, sporadically moved his businesses and himself to Mexico, abandoning our client and their three children for a paramour while refusing to provide disclosure, engage in valuations, or comply with court orders. At private mediation, we reached a full settlement in which our client (Mother) received all proceeds from the sale of the marital home (approximately $1.5 million), $5 million in non-modifiable spousal maintenance paid at $30,000 per month, all retirement accounts, and Father assumed all community liabilities, including a $660,000 tax debt.

In re the matter of D.E.: Community Property and Warranty Deed: In this dissolution, Father attempted to avoid paying our client (Mother) her share of the marital residence equity after refinancing. Father argued that Mother’s 2017 warranty deed conveyed her interest in the property, entitling her to only a Drahos calculation of approximately $30,000. Mother testified that Father directed her to sign the deed due to immigration-related documentation issues, and that community funds were used to pay for the property from the purchase through the trial. The Court found Mother credible and Father not, noting it was unreasonable for Father to claim the warranty deed was a gift while simultaneously refinancing to pay Mother $130,000 before backing out. The Court awarded Mother $130,000 for her equity and her attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of E.S.: Dissolution, Custody, and Community Property: In this dissolution, Father was arrested for sex trafficking after attempting to solicit sex with a minor on two separate occasions yet still requested joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time. The Court awarded our client (Mother) sole legal decision-making and ordered that Father receive no parenting time unless acquitted of all charges, and even if acquitted, only eight hours of supervised visitation per month. On the property issues, Father argued that Mother’s warranty deed on the marital residence barred her equity claim. Using Saba and Scherrer v. Scherrer, we argued Mother was entitled to half the equity, and the Court agreed, awarding Mother half of the equity. We prevailed on most of the remaining issues, with the Court, in many instances awarding higher amounts than requested.

In re the matter of J.V.: Dissolution, Custody, and Separate Property Defense: In this dissolution, Mother requested virtually all parenting time and claimed a community lien on our client’s (Father) sole and separate home. The Court found that Father was the parent more likely to allow the children frequent and meaningful contact with the other parent, and that Mother’s extreme position on parenting time was unsupported by evidence. The Court awarded joint legal decision-making, equal parenting time on a week-on/week-off schedule, and found that the marital residence was Father’s sole and separate property: ruling that Mother failed to meet her burden to demonstrate a community lien under Drahos after presenting no credible evidence of the purchase price, appreciation, or community contributions toward principal. The Court also awarded Father a portion of his attorneys’ fees based on Mother’s unreasonable litigation positions.

In re the matter of K.W.: Child Support Modification and Settlement: In this child support modification involving combined monthly incomes exceeding $30,000, we argued for an upward deviation from the standard worksheet. During the conference, opposing counsel agreed to our settlement offer, increasing child support from $900 to $4,500 per month, with the opposing party covering 100% of school tuition, health insurance, and extracurricular activities, and our client receiving the tax benefit in all years. The Conference Officer noted that the Mesa Courthouse rarely sees cases at this income level and applauded the result.

In re the matter of P.S. Annulment for Immigration Fraud: In this rare annulment case, our client (Wife) met the clear and convincing burden of proof required to establish that Husband had fraudulently induced her into marriage solely to obtain U.S. immigration benefits. Evidence at trial included Husband’s internet searches for Canadian residency and how to obtain a visa without a sponsor spouse, his filing of a solo I-751 Petition falsely claiming the marriage had already been terminated, and his recanting of false statements to police under cross-examination. Judge Francis granted our client’s Petition for Annulment, voiding the marriage and subjecting Husband to removal proceedings.

In re the matter of G.M.: Order of Protection Defense, Exclusive Use, and Financial Discovery: In this dissolution, Wife obtained an ex parte Order of Protection barring our client (Husband) from the marital residence, while our client believed Wife had helped launder millions of dollars in a Nigerian romance scam. At a quick-set combined hearing on the OOP and our Petition for Exclusive Use, we impeached Wife’s credibility after she claimed a scammer deposited the funds into her account. The Court quashed the Order of Protection, granted our client immediate exclusive use of the marital residence, and removed Wife from the home. Subsequently, the Court granted our Motion to Compel regarding Wife’s finances, awarded us attorneys’ fees, appointed a special master to investigate Wife’s financial dealings, and ordered Wife to pay for the special master. After a final trial, the court agreed with our client’s position concerning the wife’s romance scam, finding she committed community waste, and awarded our client a option of this attorney’s fees. 

In re the matter of D.G.: Temporary Orders Defense in Dissolution: Wife filed a motion for temporary orders alleging inflated income and requesting spousal maintenance. At the hearing, we attacked Wife’s evidence so effectively that the Court denied her motion after she rested her case, without our client needing to testify or present any evidence.

Emergency Orders

In re the matter of E.F.: Emergency Orders without Notice: In this complex, high-asset legal separation, our client sought to protect his two young daughters (ages 4 and 6) after discovering his wife had been abusing prescription drugs while pregnant and caring for the children. We filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders without Notice, arguing that, absent emergency orders, our client had no practical mechanism to prevent his wife from removing the girls from his care before a noticed hearing. The Court granted our Motion, awarding our client sole legal decision-making authority on a temporary basis and ordering the wife to exercise only supervised parenting time.

In re the matter of A.D.: Modification and Emergency Orders: In this Yavapai County modification case involving extensive domestic violence history and DCS investigations, one of the children disclosed to a school counselor that Father had shown him a firearm and made death threats against our client. We filed an Emergency Motion without Notice, and the Court granted it: suspending Father’s parenting time, limiting him to supervised visitation only, and awarding our client sole legal decision-making authority. 

In re the matter of S.S.: Emergency Orders and Temporary Orders: After the opposing party withheld the child from our client for over a month and avoided service, we filed a Motion for Alternative Service, which the Judge signed within 15 minutes of receipt, along with an Amended Order to Appear. At the Temporary Orders Hearing, the opposing party testified to having an open DCS case, continuing to violate the DCS safety plan by allowing her significant other around the child, and leaving the child with unapproved supervisors. The Court continued its emergency orders, and our client was immediately reunified with her child at the courthouse.

In re the matter of B.D.: Emergency and Temporary Orders: Our client (Father) obtained Emergency Orders placing Mother on supervised parenting time due to concerns regarding her mental fitness and potential abuse and neglect of the child. At the Temporary Orders Hearing, the Court affirmed supervised parenting time for Mother and appointed a Court-Appointed Advisor to investigate the allegations and the mental health of the parties. The Court also included, sua sponte, a prohibition on corporal punishment in the ruling.

In re the matter of K.A.: Emergency and Temporary Orders in Dissolution: In this dissolution involving extensive domestic violence, Father used threats of violence and kidnapping to control our client and their son. After obtaining an Order of Protection, we filed an emergency motion for temporary orders. At the hearing, the Court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making and limited Father to a minimum of two hours per week of supervised parenting time at his expense. Father was ordered to complete drug testing, 16 weeks of anger management and domestic violence courses, and demonstrate commitment to therapy and cooperative co-parenting before the Court will consider lifting any restrictions.

In re the matter of I.R.: Emergency Orders for Grandparent Custody: Our client, who raised her six-year-old granddaughter for the child’s entire life, was cut off from all contact after the biological mother attacked our client’s adult daughter in the child’s presence and took the child. The biological mother has a history of substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal charges, and homelessness, and failed to take the child to school for the final two weeks of kindergarten. The Court granted our Emergency Motion, and our client is working to reunify with her granddaughter.

In re the matter of B.G.: Emergency Orders Defense and Temporary Orders: Our client (Father) was served with an Emergency Order granting Mother sole legal decision-making and limiting him to four hours per week of agency-supervised parenting time, based on allegations of extreme cocaine and alcohol abuse and child endangerment supported by affidavits from Father’s ex-love-interests. Despite Father’s admission to cocaine use within the last 90 days and a prior super-extreme DUI, we focused on the lack of independent evidence supporting the allegations and Mother’s own prior acknowledgment of Father’s recreational use. The Court vacated the Emergency Order, restored equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making, and admonished opposing counsel for inappropriate witness communications. Father was ordered to use Soberlink and submit to random urinalysis, and was permitted to take the child on a planned family cruise.

In re the matter of J.B.: Emergency Orders Defense: After the opposing party obtained emergency orders granting her sole custody of the parties’ one-year-old son with no parenting time for our client, we rebutted all allegations of violence and suicidal behavior, demonstrating that the opposing party was the aggressor and had untreated, diagnosed bipolar disorder and postpartum depression. On cross-examination, she admitted to lying about the child being present during the alleged incidents. The Court awarded our client immediate equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making, and denied the opposing party’s requests for attorneys’ fees and child support.

In re the matter of J.M.: Emergency Order Dismissal and Temporary Orders: In this Cochise County case, Mother obtained an Emergency Order and contacted DCS alleging our client (Father), a surgeon, had committed child abuse against his two young daughters. We successfully argued that the allegations stemmed from a difference in parenting style regarding lawful corporal punishment, that the September incident was an unintentional and isolated occurrence, and that Mother’s motivation was to preempt Father’s own impending modification filing based on fitness concerns. Midway through our direct examination, the Court stated it had heard enough, dismissed the Emergency Order from the bench, and found Mother had failed to meet her burden. Father, who had not seen his children since the Emergency Order was entered, was immediately reunited with them.

In re the matter of S.S.: Emergency Orders Defense: Father obtained emergency orders suspending Mother’s parenting time based on allegations that her Husband had abused the children. We demonstrated the allegations were unfounded, and the Court denied Father’s temporary orders entirely. The Court is also considering dismissing Father’s underlying petition for failing to show a substantial change in circumstances.

In re the matter of J.Y.: Temporary Orders Defense: Mother filed for temporary orders alleging alcohol abuse and child abuse against our client (Father). The Court found Mother’s evidence insufficient to support her claims and admonished opposing counsel three times for failing to follow the Court’s evidentiary hearing protocols regarding exhibit submission and evidence presentation.

In re the matter of A.S.: Emergency Orders Defense and Modification: After we previously secured primary residential parent status for our client (Mother), Father told the children about the parenting schedule change, triggering the daughter’s self-harm. Father then unilaterally admitted the daughter to a mental health facility without consulting Mother and filed an emergency motion blaming Mother, resulting in the Court suspending Mother’s parenting time and granting Father sole legal decision-making for all four children. At trial, we demonstrated that Father’s conduct: repeatedly involving the children in parenting disputes and pressuring for schedule changes: was the source of the daughter’s distress. The Court vacated the emergency orders entirely, restored Mother’s final-say authority for all four children, restored her parenting time with the boys, and transitioned the daughter to the summer parenting schedule with both parents ordered to attend therapy together to support the daughter’s mental health.

In re the matter of A.S.: Emergency Orders Defense and Temporary Orders: After the tragic death of the parties’ three-year-old son, who passed away on January 14th while in Mother’s care, Father filed an Emergency Motion alleging that Mother and her Husband left the child unattended in the bathtub. Father was granted emergency sole legal decision-making and physical custody of the surviving four-year-old daughter, with Mother limited to two four-hour visits per week. Our client retained our firm just two days before the temporary orders hearing, with no opportunity to file exhibits. Through testimony alone, we demonstrated that Father had not been traditionally involved in the children’s medical and care arrangements and that Mother was not a threat to the child’s safety. The Court found it was not in the child’s best interest to be abruptly separated from Mother’s household and routine, reversed the emergency orders, designated Mother as primary residential parent, awarded joint legal decision-making with Mother exercising final-say authority, and limited Father to every-other-weekend parenting time. The Court also ordered therapy for the child to cope with her brother’s passing.

In re the matter of C.B.: Paternity Defense in Same-Sex Dissolution: Our client (Mother) conceived via in vitro fertilization and gave birth in California a week before marrying Wife. The parties divorced in 2016, with the judge striking all references to the child from the decree. When Wife later filed a Petition to Establish paternity after learning Mother’s new wife wanted to adopt the child, we contested paternity. The Court initially denied our Motion to Dismiss, finding Wife could potentially establish paternity through presumptions around the California birth certificate or substantially similar notarized statements under A.R.S. § 25-814. At the evidentiary hearing, we rebutted the birth certificate presumption: showing Wife never signed the certificate or any document at the hospital, and successfully argued that Mother’s 2016 Petition for Dissolution and the jointly signed Parenting Time Plan were not acknowledgments of paternity, as the petition left the paternity section blank, the requested relief was inconsistent with an admission of paternity, and the parenting plan was neither witnessed nor notarized. The Court found Wife failed to meet any of the four presumptions and dismissed the Petition to Establish with prejudice.

In re the matter of S.N.: Dissolution, Sole Legal Decision-Making, and Attorneys’ Fees: In this dissolution involving a history of domestic violence: including at least three incidents of physical violence and one incident of verbal domestic violence by Father against Mother: the Court found the domestic violence was significant under A.R.S. § 25-403.03, involving multiple acts that precluded an award of joint or sole legal decision-making to Father. The Court awarded our client (Mother) sole legal decision-making authority for the parties’ three children, designated Mother as the primary residential parent, and limited Father to every-other-weekend parenting time. The Court also awarded Mother her attorneys’ fees.

Order of Protection

In re the matter of K.M.: Order of Protection and Temporary Orders: After a combined Order of Protection and temporary orders hearing, the Court removed the child from the Order of Protection. The Court then, on its own motion, revisited the legal arguments and dismissed the Order of Protection in its entirety, finding that the opposing party’s statements were inconsistent between the Order of Protection and the Motion for Temporary Orders.

In re the matter of K.M.: Order of Protection Defense and Parenting Time: In this post-decree matter, Father filed an ex parte emergency motion and obtained an Order of Protection against our client (Mother) after a minor incident involving bruising during the child’s panic attack, despite Mother having voluntarily and immediately disclosed the details to Father. The Court denied Father’s emergency motion and admonished him for failing to disclose the pending family court matter when filing the Order of Protection, for attempting to obtain the Order three times without disclosure, and for misrepresenting the facts. The Court removed all restrictions from the Order of Protection regarding contact with the child, reinstated equal parenting time, and admonished Father for making unilateral legal decisions rather than co-parenting in good faith.

In re the matter of M.[Last Name]: Order of Protection and Temporary Orders: Mother left the marital residence with the parties’ two- and three-year-old daughters and obtained an Order of Protection against our client, alleging drug abuse, domestic violence, and unsafe living conditions, despite our client having sole custody of another child. At the joint hearing, the Court removed the children from the Order of Protection, awarded equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making, and reunited our client with his daughters after a two-month separation.

In re the matter of J.C.: Order of Protection, Temporary Orders, and Establishment: In this establishment case involving domestic violence during pregnancy, our client testified about physical abuse she suffered at the hands of Father during her baby shower at eight months pregnant. The Court upheld the Order of Protection, awarded Mother sole legal decision-making, and limited Father to three hours of agency-supervised parenting time per week at his expense. Father must complete 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling before the Court will consider modifying parenting time. We also successfully argued that Father, as the owner of multiple landscape companies, should be attributed income above his claimed $12 per hour, and the Court ordered child support on our proposed worksheet, along with back support for the full period permitted by law.

Modification, Parenting Time, and Final Trial

In re the matter of D.J.: Parenting Time Modification: After our client (Father) had lost all parenting time following a prior domestic violence case, we filed to modify. Mother responded with fabricated sexual abuse allegations and a private termination action to delay proceedings. The Court found Mother intentionally misled the Court, granted Father a five-stage parenting plan progressing to unsupervised time, and awarded Father his attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of N.F.: Parenting Time Modification: In this modification case, Father sought equal parenting time despite having voluntarily failed to exercise his existing two-overnight-per-week schedule under the prior orders, with the child, now 9 years old, not having seen Father for years. The Court denied Father’s request and instead entered a highly restricted, five-stage therapeutic step-up plan spanning over 16 months: beginning with letter writing and family counseling, progressing through therapeutic and then supervised visits, and culminating in limited unsupervised daytime-only parenting time with no overnights. After we represented our client in a private severance trial, we successfully terminated Father’s rights, which allowed Stepfather to adopt the child.

In re the matter of A.S.: Modification Defense and Enforcement: Father filed his latest in a series of annual petitions to modify, seeking joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time. The Court admonished Father, stating that “parenting plans are not meant to be changed frequently on the whim of a parent as this can be very destabilizing for children.” Rather than granting Father’s requests, the Court expanded Mother’s final-say authority to all decisions, maintained Mother as primary residential parent with Father limited to every-other-weekend parenting time, attributed Mother minimum wage for child support purposes and awarded her $3,092 per month in child support, and awarded Mother a portion of her attorneys’ fees for Father’s unreasonable positions and defiance of a court order regarding the children’s baptisms.

In re the matter of D.D.: Directed Verdict on Temporary Orders: Mother filed a Motion to Modify Temporary Orders alleging Father’s noncompliance with medical treatments, neglect, and marijuana use in violation of existing orders. Following cross-examination of Mother, we moved for a directed verdict arguing she failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances. The Court granted our Motion, denied the modification, and our client did not need to present any testimony.

In re the matter of S.S.: Modification Defense and Dismissal: Father filed a petition to modify based on allegations of abuse. We demonstrated that all of Father’s allegations were false, and the Court dismissed the petition outright.

In re the matter of B.M.: Motion to Dismiss Modification: In this case with a lengthy litigation history, Mother had been sentenced to five years in prison following a plea on multiple felony charges. The prior default judgment granted our client joint legal decision-making with final say and suspended Mother’s parenting time during any period of incarceration. One year later, Mother filed a Petition to Modify from prison seeking parenting time every other weekend. We filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the prior orders already contemplated Mother’s incarceration, and the Court granted the Motion, finding no change in circumstances: effectively precluding Mother from using her incarceration as a basis for modification for the remaining four years of her sentence.

In re the matter of A.K.: Final Trial and Custody: After Mother withheld the children for six months, our client proved his sobriety through hair follicle testing and reported concerns about Mother’s erratic behavior and alcohol dependence to DCS. We obtained favorable temporary orders, including final-say authority and equal parenting time. At final trial, evidence revealed Mother’s untreated substance abuse and mental health issues, including their impact on the children: the 13-year-old daughter had become severely parentified due to Mother’s behavior. The Court ordered Mother to four hours of supervised visitation per week at her expense, twice-weekly drug testing, awarded Father sole legal decision-making and primary parenting time, and ordered Mother to pay child support, with reimbursement for attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of N.G.: Final Trial and Custody: In this case involving Father’s severe alcohol abuse and violence toward the child, Father force-fed his daughter during a holiday dinner to the point she vomited, then refused to open his home to DCS and law enforcement, forcing a SWAT standoff. After Mother obtained emergency custody, the child disclosed further abuse, including loaded guns in the home and Father threatening her with firearms. Father’s drug tests were consistently positive for alcohol or no-shows. At final trial, the Court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making, limited Father to four hours of supervised parenting time every other Saturday and ordered Father to pay Mother’s attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of R.C.: Temporary Orders and Sole Legal Decision-Making: Our client’s 12-year-old son had been flagged by the Department of Homeland Security as matching the profile of a school shooter, was being monitored by the Homeland Defense Unit, and was engaging in truancy, self-harm, running away, and criminal behavior, all while Mother remained in denial and repeatedly removed the child from treatment against medical advice. Three DCS investigations based on Mother’s false allegations against Father were unsubstantiated. The Court awarded Father sole legal decision-making and primary parenting time during the school week to ensure the child attends school and receives necessary services, with Mother limited to every-other-weekend parenting time.

In re the matter of T.F.: Modification and Final Trial: Despite the child having lived primarily with Mother for two years prior to litigation, our client (Father) prevailed at trial. The Court awarded joint legal decision-making with Father exercising final say: defined so that Father has the power to make presumptive decisions, with the burden on Mother to demonstrate unreasonableness. The Court also designated Father as primary residential parent with Mother limited to every-other-weekend parenting time, and doubled Mother’s child support obligation.

In re the matter of J.T.: Modification of Parenting Time and Legal Decision-Making: Our client (Father) had been limited to every-other-weekend parenting time with Mother exercising sole legal decision-making. At trial, the Court modified the orders to award Father equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making with Mother retaining final say.

In re the matter of K.G.: Modification and Enforcement: Our repeat client (Mother) initially retained us after discovering Father had been driving drunk with their son in the car. After depositions, Father agreed to alcohol monitoring and a parenting coordinator was appointed. Father subsequently refused to pay child support, harassed Mother and the parenting coordinator, and refused court-ordered hair follicle drug testing for five months. At trial, Father’s credibility was significantly compromised through cross-examination on his refusal to test and prior deposition testimony. The Court awarded Mother final decision-making authority, restricted Father to no overnights until he tests clean, and awarded Mother a portion of her attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of J.M.: Temporary Orders and Alienation: Mother deprived our client (Father) of all contact with the children for approximately eight months, made unsubstantiated domestic violence and child abuse allegations to DCS, baptized the children over Father’s objection, and refused all communication. We filed a Motion for Temporary Orders based on Mother’s alienation. The Court issued a bench ruling granting equal parenting time with a four-week graduated schedule, awarded joint legal decision-making, and reprimanded Mother throughout the ruling. Father was reunited with his children immediately.

In re the matter of L.B.: Emergency Temporary Orders and Mental Health Evaluation: Father had engaged in years of extreme harassment against our client and sent her graphic photographs of a suicide attempt, which he then discussed with one of the children. The Court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making and ordered Father to undergo a forensically informed mental health evaluation, noting that any future concerning incidents would likely result in a modification of parenting time.

In re the matter of J.H.: Emergency and Temporary Orders: After Mother and her counsel made misrepresentations to the Court to vacate a scheduled hearing concealing domestic violence between her and her boyfriend and threatening to change the child’s school and take the child out of state, we obtained Emergency Orders. At the Temporary Orders Hearing, the Court found Mother’s testimony not credible and her actions unreasonable, granted Father final decision-making authority, ordered Mother’s parenting time to occur only in Arizona, prohibited Mother’s boyfriend from having any contact with the child, and ordered Mother to pay child support.

In re the matter of V.M.: Final Say and Supervised Parenting Time: The Court awarded our client (Father) final-say authority and ordered Mother to supervised parenting time.

In re the matter of A.B.: Petition Dismissal: Father filed a petition against our client (Mother), but we demonstrated at the evidentiary hearing that Father failed to meet his burden. The Court dismissed Father’s petition outright.

In re the matter of Mr. S.: Divorce, Modification Defense, and Sole Legal Decision-Making: In this multi-year custody battle, Mother sought sole legal decision-making and supervised parenting time for our client, alleging unfitness. We obtained equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making at temporary orders, and the parties subsequently mediated a settlement allowing Father to relocate to Texas with the children. When Father moved the children back to Flagstaff, Mother filed petitions for contempt, modification, and to prevent relocation, objecting to Father moving 1,000 miles closer to her. She followed with additional motions, including a request for a limited-scope assessment, which the Court denied. Through a strategy of calculated restraint, we avoided costly defensive filings while guiding the client through therapeutic intervention and parenting coordination. Mother ultimately dismissed all of her petitions and agreed to give Father sole legal decision-making, with Mother’s parenting time limited to when the children voluntarily choose to see her.

In re the matter of C.M.: Temporary Orders and Parenting Time: Mother sought to restrict our client (Father) to brief, supervised visits with their two-year-old daughter and requested final decision-making authority. The Court found no credible evidence that Father posed any threat to the child, found Mother’s testimony that Father made no effort to be in the child’s life contrary to the evidence, and found Mother’s restrictions on Father’s parenting time unreasonable. The Court awarded joint legal decision-making and granted Father 15 days of parenting time each month: effectively equal time: with Mother ordered to reimburse Father for half the travel costs.

In re the matter of E.S.: Sole Legal Decision-Making and No Parenting Time: The Court awarded our client (Mother) sole legal decision-making authority and ordered that Father shall have no parenting time until he completes a court-ordered hair follicle drug test. Father had previously failed to attend multiple hearings, failed to complete a prior court-ordered hair follicle test, and admitted to drug use during the evidentiary hearing.

In re the matter of J.M.: Modification and Final Say: In this modification case, the prior orders granted joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time. However, Mother had a history of residential instability, lived in situations involving domestic violence, exposed the child to violent individuals, and had not seen the child in person since June 2019. The child’s breathing problems from asthma and bronchitis improved significantly after moving into Father’s full-time care, as Mother had been smoking around the child. The Court found Mother’s testimony about medical issues and lengthy hospital stays not credible, finding her claims to be convenient excuses for instability that predated her current medical issues. The Court awarded Father joint legal decision-making with final-say authority, designated Father as primary residential parent, and limited Mother to four hours of parenting time per week, with Mother ordered to pay $200 per month in child support.

In re the matter of A.H.: Sole Legal Decision-Making and Domestic Violence Finding: In this modification case, our client (Mother) alleged that Father had punched her in the face during an argument in 2013. Despite Mother presenting no police reports, medical records, DCS records, domestic violence shelter records, or corroborating witnesses, relying solely on her own testimony, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Father had committed domestic violence. Under A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D), the Court applied the rebuttable presumption against awarding decision-making to the perpetrator, and found that Father failed to rebut the presumption: having never completed a batterer’s prevention program or parenting class. The Court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making authority, designated Mother as the primary residential parent, and limited Father to restricted parenting time.

Contempt and Enforcement

In re the matter of T.G.: Contempt Dismissal and Tax Exemption Defense: When no court order existed allocating the child tax exemption for 2018, both parties claimed it and were audited by the IRS. The IRS accepted Mother’s return and denied Father’s. Father filed a Petition for Contempt seeking attorneys’ fees for the audit and requesting Mother pay his tax liability. We filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, arguing there was no written order to violate, and the Court’s role is not to decide who has the better claim under IRS regulations. The Court agreed, denied the contempt finding, and granted the Motion to Dismiss.

In re the matter of A.D.: Enforcement of Medical Expenses: In this enforcement action, our client sought to hold Father accountable for failing to comply with an Under Advisement Ruling requiring him to research and reimburse the children’s medical expenses. The Court found Father had not complied, noting he never conducted the ordered investigation and waited until the eve of trial to request documentation. The Court ordered Father to reimburse our client $18,875.03, with any unpaid balance after 90 days reduced to a judgment with statutory interest.

In re the matter of M.T.: Contempt and Makeup Parenting Time: In a detailed and blistering ruling, the Court found Mother in contempt for repeated violations of court orders. Father was awarded 53 days of makeup parenting time to be exercised in any manner he chooses, superseding all other parenting time, plus nearly $7,000 in judgments for Mother’s violations and an award of attorneys’ fees.

In re the matter of R.M.: Contempt and Sanctions: Wife failed to comply with the tax return requirements of a previous consent decree. Despite numerous excuses from Wife and opposing counsel, we built a thorough paper trail documenting our client’s efforts to address the violations. The Court found Wife in contempt, imposed sanctions, and ordered Wife to pay our client’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

In re the matter of A.L.: Contempt: The opposing parent repeatedly refused to appear for court-ordered supervised parenting time sessions. On our advice, our client continued to pay for and attend the sessions, and the supervisor’s reports documenting the opposing parent’s refusals proved highly beneficial. The Court found the opposing parent in contempt of the temporary orders.

In re the matter of S.B.: Contempt: Similarly, the opposing parent refused to appear for court-ordered supervised parenting time. Our client followed our advice to continue attending and paying for the sessions, and the supervisor’s documentation of the opposing parent’s noncompliance was instrumental. The Court found the opposing parent in contempt of the temporary orders.

In re the matter of J.B.: Defense of Default Decree: Wife sought to set aside our client’s default decree, claiming she was traumatized by Husband and that he had threatened her. We filed a comprehensive response dismantling Wife’s arguments, and the Court agreed, denying the motion to set aside and preserving the default decree in its entirety.

Establishment, Paternity, and Default

In re the matter of N.F.: Paternity Establishment and Custody: Our client discovered that the mother of his child planned to give the baby up for adoption, then blocked all contact. After learning of the child’s birth, our client immediately registered with the Putative Father Registry and retained our firm to establish paternity. Mother’s counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming our client failed to take timely action, but the Court rejected those arguments and awarded our client attorneys’ fees. Genetic testing confirmed paternity, and after the prospective adoptive parents in Georgia were ordered to return the child, our client held his daughter for the first time.

In re the matter of N.V.: Paternity and Summary Judgment: Our client had been a father to his daughter for five years when Mother suddenly denied him all access. After we filed a Petition to Establish, Mother challenged the parties’ Acknowledgment of Paternity, claiming it was fraudulently executed and requesting a DNA test: while her own Response admitted that both parties knowingly signed the Acknowledgment. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Mother cannot seek relief from the Acknowledgment based on her own fraud under McQuillen, and opposed Mother’s Motion for Leave to Amend to add the alleged biological father as a party. The Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment, denied Mother’s Motion for Leave to Amend, and our client’s established paternity was preserved.

In re the matter of C.T.: Set Aside Default Judgment: The opposing party obtained a Default Judgment for paternity, legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support against our client using a forged signature, falsifying his income to secure a $5,000 per month child support garnishment while awarding herself sole legal decision-making and no parenting time for Father. She also incurred tens of thousands of dollars in debt in our client’s name. We filed a Motion to Set Aside the Judgment on the deadline, and the Court granted the Motion, setting aside the Judgment and terminating the Income Withholding Order: allowing the establishment case to proceed from scratch and our client to seek reunification with his children.

In re the matter of T.T.: Emergency Orders, Temporary Orders, and Final Trial: After our client received unfavorable temporary orders under prior counsel, we obtained an Emergency Motion for Temporary Orders without Notice, suspending the opposing party’s parenting time due to his deteriorating mental health. At the Temporary Orders Hearing, the Court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making and limited the opposing party to supervised parenting time at a facility at his expense. At final trial, the Court maintained sole legal decision-making for Mother, continued supervised parenting time, and awarded $837 per month in child support plus judgments for past child support and uncovered medical expenses.

In re the matter of J.G.: Establishment and Emergency Orders: After Mother refused to allow our client any parenting time with his one-year-old child, we filed for establishment and obtained temporary orders granting equal parenting time and prohibiting Mother’s ex-husband from contact with the child due to his violent history. When a private investigator confirmed Mother was violating the no-contact order, we filed an Emergency Motion, and the Court ordered Mother to supervised parenting time with primary custody transferred to Father.

In re the matter of J.H.: Parenting Time and Child Support: Mother requested our client (Father) be restricted to every-other-weekend parenting time and sought $252 per month in child support. The Court instead awarded equal parenting time and reduced the child support obligation to $86 per month.

In re the matter of L.B.: Establishment and Settlement: Father sought sole legal decision-making, supervised parenting time, and release of our client’s mental health records, alleging suicide attempts, self-harm, pending assault charges, and concerns about a third party’s contact with the children. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, and limited client resources, we engaged in strategic settlement negotiations and reached a final agreement preserving equal parenting time with joint legal decision-making. Our client’s medical records were protected, a no-contact order was entered against the third party, and, with equal parenting time established, our client will receive approximately $780 per month in child support plus upwards of $28,080 in back support from Father’s six-figure income, all without our client having to testify.

In re the matter of L.F.: Trial and Sole Legal Decision-Making: Mother failed to appear at trial, and we presented evidence of her pending criminal charges in Missouri, untreated mental health issues, and drug abuse history. Despite the Court’s initial inclination toward drug testing and precautionary measures rather than suspension of parenting time, we successfully argued for full suspension. The Court granted our client sole legal decision-making, suspended Mother’s parenting time, and awarded child support and a past support judgment.

In re the matter of A.S.: Temporary Orders and Custody: Father had a history of methamphetamine addiction with a 2019 relapse, tested positive for cocaine on a hair follicle test, and admitted to punching out Mother’s car window. The Court awarded our client (Mother) sole legal decision-making authority, ordered Father to supervised parenting time with continued random drug testing to establish a record of sobriety, and ordered Father to pay $1,359 per month in child support.

In re the matter of C.B.: Set Aside Default Custody Judgment: Maternal Grandparents filed a petition for custody of our client’s six-year-old child, assuring Mother it was only a formality to get the child on grandfather’s military benefits and that they would never take the child from her. On grandfather’s assurances, Mother allowed the matter to go to default. The morning after the order was entered, Grandfather arrived and announced “we now have custody,” and police allowed the grandparents to take the child from Phoenix to Yuma. Throughout the custody order, grandparents denied Mother parenting time and repeatedly violated notice requirements about out-of-state travel: their true motive being to pressure Mother into leaving her Wife and moving to Yuma. We filed a Motion to Set Aside the default judgment based on excusable neglect and misrepresentation, and played audio in court of a phone conversation in which Grandfather was caught telling Mother she did not need a lawyer. The Court granted the Motion and set aside the judgment.

In re the matter of N.U.: Establishment and Parenting Time: In this establishment case involving four children: three biological to our client (Father) and a fourth for whom he is listed on the birth certificate. Mother sought to restrict Father to every-other-weekend with the three biological children, no contact with the fourth child, sole legal decision-making, and approximately $1,000 in child support. Despite competing paternity presumptions for the youngest child under A.R.S. § 25-814, the Court noted that Mother may be estopped from denying Father’s paternity given his name on the birth certificate and his role as a father figure since birth. The Court awarded joint legal decision-making, equal parenting time with all four children on a two-week rotating schedule, and only $242 in child support.

Termination of Parental Rights

In re the matter of M.V.: Termination of Parental Rights (Guardian): Our client, the child’s uncle and permanent guardian for many years, sought to terminate Mother’s parental rights after she had no contact with the child for years following a DCS removal due to severe methamphetamine use, the child tested positive and endured 30 days of withdrawal at age three. Mother fled the state to avoid criminal child abuse charges and reappeared two years later seeking custody without proof of sobriety or stability. Father remained incarcerated on drug-related charges. At trial, the Guardian Ad Litem agreed that termination was in the child’s best interest, and the Court granted the termination, meeting the clear and convincing evidence standard.

In re the matter of C.H.: Termination of Parental Rights and Child Support: After our client’s prior unsuccessful attempts to terminate Father’s parental rights, we located and served Father at a Home Depot in Missouri. He voluntarily consented to the termination. We then obtained $507 per month in child support, a past child support judgment of $17,180.96, and 100% of our requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,294.31.

Grandparent/Third-Party Visitation and In Loco Parentis

In re the matter of G. and P.: In Loco Parentis: Our clients, the maternal grandparents and primary caregivers for most of the children’s lives, had not seen their granddaughters for 2 years, when Mother withdrew the girls from school and disappeared during an active DCS investigation. Father had outstanding warrants, and Mother had a history of homelessness and substance abuse. After overcoming jurisdictional issues between Family Court and Juvenile Court and service challenges, the Court awarded our clients in loco parentis authority with full custody and legal decision-making, limiting Mother to supervised visitation only. The grandparents picked up the girls from school and they are now safe and in their care.

In re the matter of D.C.: Grandparent Visitation: Our client (Grandmother) helped raise her granddaughter for most of the child’s life until Mother was incarcerated and Father cut off all contact with Grandmother and the maternal side of the family. At trial, the Court found that visitation would not cause significant disruption and was in the child’s best interest, awarding Grandmother parenting time every second and fourth weekend, Christmas Day overnight, and two consecutive weeks during the summer. The Court also ordered that Grandmother may take the child to visit her incarcerated Mother, finding continued contact with the maternal side of the family to be in the child’s best interest.

In re the matter of R.W.: Grandparent Visitation: In this grandparent visitation case, the Court found our client (Maternal Grandmother) credible while finding Mother, Father, and Paternal Grandmother’s testimony lacking in credibility. The Court awarded our client significantly more parenting time than is typically granted in grandparent visitation cases: one full weekend per month, plus one week of vacation time with the ability to travel out of state.

In re the matter of B.K.: Third-Party Visitation Defense: Paternal grandparents sought third-party visitation under A.R.S. § 25-409 after Father’s death, despite having visited the child only twice over four months and having no documented relationship. The paternal grandmother had physically assaulted our client at both the baby shower and the funeral, and the family had made repeated DCS and police reports against our client. At trial, the grandparents provided no evidence of a historical relationship with the child and their credibility was undermined on cross-examination. The Court denied the petition for grandparent visitation, finding it was not in the child’s best interest.

DCS, Dependency, and Administrative

In re the matter of S.P.: DCS Substantiation Appeal: Our client, a stepmother, was falsely accused of physically abusing her husband’s son based on vague, unreliable disclosures that were never recorded. DCS substantiated the allegations, which would have placed our client on the Central Registry for 25 years, barring her from working with children or the elderly, volunteering, and coaching. Video evidence presented at the appeal hearing showed that Mother had coached the child, and the child never directly disclosed abuse. Our client presented credible testimony, and the Court overturned the DCS substantiation, clearing her name after a two-year fight.

In re the matter of J.M.: Dependency Dismissal and Reunification: Our client (Father) had not seen his son in six years. We successfully obtained a dismissal of the dependency, and Father was reunited with his son.

In re the matter of R.N.: DCS Substantiation Appeal: We successfully appealed a DCS finding of substantiated abuse against our client. This result is particularly significant because DCS substantiation requires only a probable cause standard: the lowest legal standard of proof, requiring only a strong suspicion that the allegations are true. Overcoming even this minimal threshold on appeal demonstrates the weakness of DCS’s evidence and the strength of our client’s case.