French v. Morin
1 CA-CV 16-0688-FC
Ariz. Ct. App.Oct 24, 2017Background
- Father (Justin French) sought paternity, joint legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support for two children; temporary orders gave joint legal decision-making, Mother primary residence, Father weekend parenting, and prohibited paternal grandfather from contact.
- A stipulated order kept those provisions and limited Father’s parenting time with conditional midweek time; Grandparents later petitioned for visitation under A.R.S. § 25-409 and were denied after Father moved for summary judgment.
- Father later filed to modify parenting time, restrict access by other paternal family (including step-grandmother), and reduce child support; Mother sought to lift the ban on paternal grandfather.
- At the modification hearing the family court found no material change in circumstances affecting parenting time or expanded contact restrictions, but found a material change only as to child support and increased Father’s obligation.
- Father appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed all rulings except it vacated and remanded the child support modification because the family court used an unsupported income figure for Mother.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether material-change standard applies before modifying parenting time or access restrictions | Father: court should perform best-interests analysis without requiring a material-change showing for modification of existing orders | Mother: material-change requirement applies; court properly required it before re-evaluating best interests | Court: material-change requirement applies; family court did not err in applying it and found no material change, so no new best-interests analysis was required |
| Whether court should restrict access by extended paternal family beyond grandfather/step-grandmother | Father: court should bar all paternal-family contact without his consent due to safety/history concerns | Mother: no basis to expand restrictions beyond grandfather; prior findings control absent material change | Court: father failed to show material change regarding other family members; denial of broad restriction affirmed |
| Grandparents’ participation after summary-judgment ruling | Father: permitting Grandparents to participate as parties at modification hearing was irregular and deprived him of fair trial | Mother: not argued in detail on appeal; participation was limited/intervenor status preserved | Court: issue waived for failure to raise below; not addressed on merits |
| Child support modification correctness | Father: court used incorrect income figure for Mother, so the support increase was erroneous | Mother: court adopted worksheet and increased support (implicit defense) | Court: family court’s income figure for Mother ($1,395.33) is unsupported; child support order vacated and remanded for recalculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Meyer, 237 Ariz. 112 (App. 2015) (standards of review for modification and interpretation of Title 25 terminology)
- Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150 (App. 2015) (material-change requirement for modifying legal decision-making or parenting time)
- Canty v. Canty, 178 Ariz. 443 (App. 1994) (family court’s discretion to determine material change)
- Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 134 Ariz. 177 (1982) (adequate-cause practice for setting hearings on modification)
- Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297 (App. 2013) (if material change found, court must consider best interests)
- Hendricks v. Mortensen, 153 Ariz. 241 (App. 1987) (case law requires showing of material change to modify custody orders)
- Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003) (court must find material change before modifying custody/parenting time)
- Gutierrez v. Fox, 242 Ariz. 259 (App. 2017) (requirement for specific best-interests findings aids future modifications and appellate review)
- Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270 (App. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for restrictions on third-party contact)
- Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612 (App. 2015) (child support must be calculated using Guidelines and correct gross income)
- Kent v. Carter-Kent, 235 Ariz. 309 (App. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 83 motions)
- Hahn v. Pima County, 200 Ariz. 167 (App. 2001) (issues not raised below are waived on appeal)