Baker v. Meyer
237 Ariz. 112
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Deborah Baker and Matthew Meyer divorced in 2008; their decree incorporated a joint custody parenting plan with alternating seven-day parenting time and shared decision-making.
- In Feb 2014 Meyer sought permission for two sons to attend Cate School (a California boarding school); J. previously attended and Baker consented to J.'s return but objected to N.'s enrollment.
- Trial court treated the dispute as a school-placement decision, applied the Jordan school-placement factors, found neither local nor Cate was plainly superior, and ordered N. to attend Cate based largely on N.’s wishes and family tradition.
- N.’s attendance at Cate would reduce Baker’s parenting time with him from 182 days/year to 61 days/year (a substantial curtailment of her parenting time).
- Baker appealed, arguing the matter was a disputed modification of parenting time requiring application of parenting-time statutory factors and specific findings; the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (Meyer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sending N. to out-of-state boarding school is a school-placement issue or a modification of parenting time | This is a modification of parenting time because boarding school substantially reduces Baker’s parenting time and parental rights | This is school placement; Jordan factors govern because the dispute concerns which school is best for the child | It is a parenting-time issue; the trial court erred by treating it solely as school placement |
| Whether the trial court applied correct statutory factors and made required findings when parental time is at stake | Court must consider § 25-403(A) parenting-time factors and make specific on-the-record findings about best interests and parenting time impact | Jordan school-placement analysis and child’s wishes justified the placement decision | The trial court failed to consider statutory parenting-time factors (e.g., substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time) and did not make required findings; remand required |
| Whether appellant’s position was frivolous and appellee is entitled to appellate fees | Baker’s position is legally meritorious given statutory provisions protecting parenting time | Meyer sought fees arguing Baker’s appeal lacked merit | Appeal was not frivolous; fee request denied; Baker entitled to costs on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
- Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518 (App. 1999) (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to upholding trial court)
- Jordan v. Rea, 221 Ariz. 581 (App. 2009) (adopted modified § 25-403 factors for school-placement disputes)
- Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270 (App. 2013) (failure to make statutorily required findings when modifying parenting time is an abuse of discretion)
- Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003) (standard of review for parenting-time modification is abuse of discretion)
- Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 196 Ariz. 246 (App. 1999) (recognition of parental rights as fundamental)