Cook v. Losnegard
228 Ariz. 202
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother and Father never married; they share a son and the 2006 family court awarded Mother sole custody with Father paying $860.31 monthly.
- In April 2009, Father relocated to Washington and petitioned to modify custody and to review child support after a custody plan was determined.
- After trial, the court affirmed sole custody, ordered both parents to share travel expenses for visits, and set income figures for support.
- The court reduced Father's support to $270.19 and required unreimbursed medical expenses to be shared by income, with no daycare adjustment.
- Mother challenged notice and evidence for child-support issues; exhibits regarding daycare were returned and counsel argued insufficient notice for support modification.
- The appellate court affirmed travel expense allocation but vacated the modified child-support order and remanded for proper proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Travel expenses allocation challenged | Cook argues relocation increased costs and she should not bear them. | Losnegard contends costs should be shared given parenting time realities. | No abuse; travel costs equitably allocated. |
| Court modification of child support | Cook claims lack of adequate notice; support modification improper. | Losnegard asserts proper modification under guidelines. | Modified child support vacated; remand for proper proceedings. |
| Due process and notice regarding modification | Mother lacked notice and opportunity to present relevant evidence (e.g., daycare). | Father's relocation and income issues were litigated; notice adequate. | Mother did not receive adequate notice; remand for proper proceedings. |
| Judicial bias claim | Mother alleges the court repeatedly denied her petitions and favored Father. | Court was unbiased; Mother prevailed on some issues. | No proven judicial bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Robinson and Thiel, 201 Ariz. 328, 35 P.3d 89 (App. 2001) (travel-expense allocations considered under discretion)
- Wood v. Wood, 76 Ariz. 412, 265 P.2d 778 (1954) (equitable factors in parenting-time costs)
- Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181 (App. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 975 P.2d 108 (1999) (imputing income and child-support guidelines)
- Curtis v. Richardson, 212 Ariz. 308, 131 P.3d 480 (App. 2006) (due-process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard)