Gallo v. Gallo, 1 CA-CV 20-0642-FC

Parties married in 2012 and have two minor children; they entered the collaborative-law process and executed two Rule 69 agreements (one with parenting-time terms; one addressing finances, including alleged debt to Mother's parents).
After domestic incidents and an order of protection, Mother sought and briefly obtained a temporary sole-custody order; after hearings the court vacated that order and repeatedly modified parenting-time restrictions tied to concerns about Father’s pain-medication use.
The court-appointed pain-medication expert and subsequent hearings led the court to lift driving restrictions, permit unsupervised and then expanded parenting time for Father, but also imposed medication-related conditions.
At trial the parties disputed Father’s income (Mother’s expert projected very high income from vacation rentals; Father claimed much lower income and drained savings) and whether funds from Mother’s parents were a loan or gift.
The superior court found credibility issues (criticizing Mother’s credibility), awarded joint legal decision-making with Mother having final authority subject to limits, equal parenting time, child support of $1,077/month, and declined to treat alleged parental-loan funds as proven debt.
Both parties appealed (Mother challenging parenting time, debt division, and child support; Father cross-appealing child-support inclusions). The appellate court affirmed all orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Enforce Rule 69 parenting-time terms	Court had approved the parties’ Rule 69 parenting-time agreement; it was binding and should have been enforced	Court retained authority under A.R.S. §25-317 and had discretion to modify parenting time in children’s best interests	Court retained discretion; no express approval made, so refusal to enforce the agreement was not error
Enforce Rule 69 debt provision	Second Rule 69 required equal responsibility for alleged $160,000 parental loan; court should enforce it	Payment characterization was disputed; terms vague; funds may have been gifts	Court reasonably found insufficient evidence of a loan; credibility finding supported treating funds as not established debt
Father’s income for child support	Mother: expert shows very high rental-derived income; court should adopt higher figure	Father: income far lower (claimed ~$50k or less); expert projections speculative	Court acted within discretion in adopting a middle-ground annual income ($77,160) after explaining its reasoning
Inclusion of insurance and childcare in worksheet	Mother testified to $581/mo insurance and $700/mo childcare; these are proper Guideline inputs	Father: no evidence supported including those amounts	Court permissibly relied on Mother’s uncontradicted testimony; inclusion was supported by the record

Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469 (App. 2018) (court may reject a Rule 69 agreement if not reasonable as to custody and parenting time)
DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420 (App. 2019) (appellate review accepts trial court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28 (App. 2002) (apply same rules of construction to Child Support Guidelines as statutes)
Emmons v. Superior Ct., 192 Ariz. 509 (App. 1998) (contract principles govern non-custody terms of Rule 69 agreements)
Cummings v. Cummings, 182 Ariz. 383 (App. 1994) (purpose of Child Support Guidelines; consider parents’ ability to pay)
Sherman v. Sherman, 241 Ariz. 110 (App. 2016) (gross income for support is actual cash-like benefits available for expenditures; trial court has discretion determining income)
In re Marriage of Robinson, 201 Ariz. 328 (App. 2001) (standard of review for child support orders)