Hykes v. Peak
1 CA-CV 16-0465-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Parents (never married) had a son in 2004; they lived together ~5 years and separated in 2009 when Mother moved out of state with the child without Father’s consent. Father later filed to establish paternity, parenting time, and child support; court ordered return of the child to Arizona.
- In 2012 the court ordered joint legal decision-making and approximately equal parenting time.
- In 2015 Father moved to Washington and sought to relocate the child to Washington under a year-on/year-off parenting plan; Mother moved to make herself primary residential parent and sought sole legal decision-making and restricted Father’s parenting time to school breaks.
- The superior court denied Father’s relocation request, made Mother the primary residential parent, awarded joint legal decision-making but gave Mother final decision-making authority, limited Father’s parenting time to school breaks and parts of vacations, and set child support at $480/month effective Feb. 1, 2016.
- Father appealed, but did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeals presumed the missing transcript supported the superior court’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relocation / primary residential parent | Father argued he should be allowed to relocate the child to Washington to continue equal parenting time and thus bore a lesser relocation burden | Mother opposed relocation and argued the child’s stability and schooling favored remaining in Arizona | Court denied relocation and made Mother primary residential parent; Father bore burden to prove relocation was in child’s best interests and did not meet it |
| Legal decision-making (final authority over healthcare) | Father argued his continuous provision of the child’s insurance since 2009 entitled him to final decision-making on health care | Mother sought final decision-making as primary residential parent; joint decision-making proposed but with Mother having final authority | Court awarded joint legal decision-making with Mother having final decision-making authority over all issues, including health care |
| Child support calculation and effective date | Father challenged the child support computation (disputed childcare figures) and objected to back support to petition date | Mother’s filings supported guideline calculation; court used Father’s 2015 tax return and attributed reasonable income to Mother, adjusted childcare costs | Court applied Arizona Child Support Guidelines, made modification effective Feb. 1, 2016 (first day of month after petition), and did not abuse discretion in calculations |
| Protected address request | Father sought protected address citing a prior assault during an exchange | Mother argued no ongoing risk; alleged assault was years old and not clearly tied to her acquaintances | Court revoked/denied protected address after hearing, finding insufficient evidence of present risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270 (App. 2013) (standard of review for parenting time and custody appeals)
- Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51 (App. 2004) (standard of review for child support matters)
- Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518 (1999) (abuse of discretion defined; appellate presumption supporting trial findings)
- Fletcher v. Fletcher, 137 Ariz. 497 (App. 1983) (presumption that missing transcript supports trial court’s findings)
- Murray v. Murray, 239 Ariz. 174 (App. 2016) (A.R.S. § 25-408 governs relocation analysis)
- Reid v. Reid, 222 Ariz. 204 (App. 2009) (best-interests standard governs custody and decision-making)
- Mead v. Holzmann, 198 Ariz. 219 (App. 2000) (Arizona Child Support Guidelines govern support calculations)