Lamb v. Nielsen
1 CA-CV 17-0171-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Shirley Lamb (Mother) and Neil Nielsen (Father) married in 2002 and have two minor children; Mother has Bipolar I disorder with documented manic episodes and prior hospitalizations.
- On May 1, 2015, an in-home argument produced a brief physical altercation; Mother later reported being choked, obtained a temporary order of protection, but Father was not criminally charged.
- Mother filed for dissolution May 8, 2015 and sought emergency orders alleging domestic violence and requesting sole custody or supervised parenting time for Father.
- Father denied the allegations, alleged Mother was manic and had a history of making unsubstantiated abuse claims, and sought sole decision-making; Mother was involuntarily committed later in May and hospitalized for months.
- The family court awarded Father sole legal decision-making and supervised parenting time to Mother, finding Mother failed to prove Father committed domestic violence; Mother’s Rule 83 motion to amend was denied and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lamb) | Defendant's Argument (Nielsen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father committed an act of domestic violence under A.R.S. § 25-403.03 | Mother argued the evidence (medical notes, her account, injuries) established Father choked/assaulted her on May 1, 2015 | Father denied choking; presented consistent testimony, photographs of his injuries, officer and child statements undermining Mother’s version; pointed to Mother’s manic history | Court held Mother did not prove domestic violence; substantial evidence supported Father’s version and credibility findings |
| Whether evidence required denying Father sole legal decision-making due to domestic violence presumption | Mother contended a finding of domestic violence would create a rebuttable presumption against awarding decision-making to Father | Father maintained no domestic violence finding; urged award of sole decision-making for children’s best interests | Court affirmed award of sole legal decision-making to Father because no domestic violence finding was made |
| Whether family court abused discretion or clearly erred in factual findings | Mother argued the weight of the evidence compelled reversal | Father argued trial court properly evaluated credibility and relied on substantial evidence | Court found no abuse of discretion; deferred to credibility determinations and substantial evidence supporting findings |
| Whether Mother was entitled to attorneys’ fees on appeal | Mother requested fees under various family statutes | Father argued Mother gave no financial showing and his position was not unreasonable | Court denied Mother’s request; awarded Father taxable costs as prevailing party on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Leathers v. Leathers, 216 Ariz. 374 (App. 2007) (appellate review affirms if reasonable evidence supports family court)
- Deatherage v. Deatherage, 140 Ariz. 317 (App. 1984) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Flying Diamond Airpark, L.L.C. v. Meienberg, 215 Ariz. 44 (App. 2007) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1999) (deference to family court credibility determinations)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2010) (will not reweigh conflicting evidence when substantial evidence supports judgment)
- Moore v. Title Ins. Co. of Minn., 148 Ariz. 408 (App. 1985) (finding of fact not clearly erroneous if supported by substantial evidence)