Campbell v. Stephens
1 CA-CV 15-0830-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Child born 2007; in Sept 2012 school reported child to DCS after severe bruising; Mother admitted belt punishment; Mother convicted of class six felony child abuse and placed on 10-year probation.
- December 2012 family-court order denied Mother parenting time and awarded Father sole physical custody and legal decision-making.
- Mother petitioned in May 2014 to modify custody seeking joint legal decision-making and parenting time; limited therapeutic contacts occurred (two brief visits with child and his counselor in 2015).
- At the Oct 8, 2015 evidentiary hearing Father opposed unsupervised contact and sought continued reunification therapy; counselor could not recommend due to limited exposure.
- Trial court granted joint legal decision-making (with Father tiebreaker) and supervised weekly visits that would transition to unsupervised visits after ~3.5 months and equal parenting time beginning June 2016.
- Father appealed; appellate court vacated both the joint legal decision-making award and the unsupervised parenting-time order and remanded for further findings and proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint legal decision-making was permissible given Mother’s history of child abuse | Mother sought joint legal decision-making, arguing rehabilitation steps taken (probation conditions completed, regained custody of older child) | Father argued Mother’s felony child-abuse conviction and history of abuse could preclude joint legal decision-making under § 25-403.03(A) | Vacated and remanded: court must consider whether § 25-403.03(A) precludes joint legal decision-making and make specific findings before awarding it |
| Whether unsupervised parenting time was appropriate after limited supervised contact and minimal therapy | Mother argued the two visits went well and she’d taken corrective steps, so transition to unsupervised time was appropriate | Father argued the record lacked reunification therapy, counselor recommendations, or evaluations showing unsupervised time would not endanger or impair the child | Vacated and remanded: Mother bore burden under § 25-403.03(F) to prove unsupervised parenting time would not endanger child; court failed to make required specific findings and abused its discretion |
| Whether trial court made adequate best-interest findings under A.R.S. § 25-403(B) | Mother relied on general findings about steps taken and custody of older child | Father pointed to lack of § 25-403(B) specific findings and absence of expert evaluation or sufficient counseling evidence | Vacated: court failed to state on record reasons tying § 25-403(A) factors to best-interest conclusion regarding unsupervised time |
| Adequacy of evidence (counselor/evaluation) to support modification | Mother pointed to two visits and completion of programs | Father emphasized lack of counselor testimony/recommendation, no custody evaluation, and child’s adverse reactions after contact | Vacated: record lacked independent evaluations and counselor input; remand for additional evidence and specific findings required |
Key Cases Cited
- Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003) (standard of review and requirement to make findings under § 25-403)
- Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297 (App. 2013) (framework for modification: material change and best interest analysis under § 25-403)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (finding of significant domestic violence under § 13-3601 precludes joint legal decision-making under § 25-403.03(A))
- Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437 (App. 1982) (failure to file brief not treated as confession of error)
- State v. Lynch, 115 Ariz. 19 (App. 1977) (courts may take judicial notice of convictions and procedural facts from other court records)