Landry v. Landry
1 CA-CV 16-0665-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2017Background
- Parents originally agreed (Dec 2014) to joint legal decision-making and to use a therapeutic interventionist (TI) to set parenting time.
- Mother sought an order of protection in Dec 2015 (denied); Father moved to enforce parenting time claiming Mother prevented visits.
- Court ordered confidential Conciliation Services interviews of the children; reports were not made available to the parties and no contemporaneous objection was raised at trial.
- March 2016 status conference (which Mother did not attend) prompted the court, sua sponte, to grant Father temporary sole legal decision-making authority over E.L.; an evidentiary hearing was later set.
- After a July 2016 evidentiary hearing (Mother represented and participated), the superior court awarded Father permanent sole legal decision-making authority over E.L. and left E.L.’s parenting time with Mother to E.L.’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confidential child interview records must be made available under Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 12 | Mother: Court erred by not making interview records available; she did not stipulate to confidentiality | Father: Parties stipulated to non-disclosure (no record cited) | Rule 12 requires making interview records available absent a stipulation; court erred but no prejudice because interview content was cumulative of other evidence, so outcome stands |
| Whether failure to object to admission/use of confidential interviews at trial forfeits the issue on appeal | Mother: Court should have reviewed claim despite no trial objection because rule violation affects fairness | Father: Issue was not preserved; no objection below | Appellate court considered merits despite lack of trial objection because correct legal principle would dispose of appeal; found no reversible prejudice |
| Whether temporary award of sole legal decision-making to Father violated Mother’s due process (lack of notice/evidentiary hearing) | Mother: Temporary order was entered without notice or hearing, violating due process | Father: Procedural defects in temporary orders cured by later full evidentiary hearing on merits | Moot — because Mother received notice and a full evidentiary hearing on the final modification and participated; any earlier defect did not affect final decision |
| Whether evidence supported awarding Father sole legal decision-making and child-controlled parenting time | Mother: Insufficient/tainted evidence (e.g., coached statements) | Father: TI reports, police report, testimony showed Mother alienating and abusing child; child chose to live with Father | Sufficient evidence (including TI and police reports, testimony, child’s choice) supported award; findings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Meyer, 237 Ariz. 112 (App. 2015) (standard of review for modifying parenting/decision-making)
- Manuel M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 218 Ariz. 205 (App. 2008) (procedural-review principles)
- Fuentes v. Fuentes, 209 Ariz. 51 (App. 2004) (prejudice requirement for evidentiary error)
- In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524 (App. 2002) (appeal preservation and review issues)
- Dillig v. Fisher, 142 Ariz. 47 (App. 1984) (failure to raise issue below generally forfeits on appeal)
- Evenstad v. State, 178 Ariz. 578 (App. 1994) (court may decide unraised legal principle if it disposes of the action)
- Sedona Private Prop. Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126 (App. 1998) (mootness doctrine)
- Lana A. v. Woodburn, 211 Ariz. 62 (App. 2005) (judicial restraint and moot questions)