Landwehr v. Landwehr
1 CA-CV 21-0381-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 1, 2022Background
- Mother (Jacquelyn) and Father (Kasey) divorced by default; Mother was awarded sole legal decision-making and primary residential parent; Father had one weekend of supervised parenting per month.
- In June 2020 Mother informed Father she would relocate to Louisiana; Father filed a petition to prevent relocation in July 2020; Mother moved after an eviction and during a high-risk pregnancy and inability to work in Arizona.
- Mother claimed the move was required by eviction, health (high-risk pregnancy), and employment; she and the children remained in Louisiana while the petition was litigated.
- At an April 2021 evidentiary hearing both parents testified; Mother introduced eviction evidence, a doctor’s letter, and school records showing the children were thriving in Louisiana.
- The superior court found Mother satisfied the emergency-relocation statutory exception and that relocation was in the children’s best interests, denied Father’s petition, and implemented a long-distance parenting plan increasing Father’s parenting time relative to the prior plan.
- Father appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, denying Father’s claims of legal error or lack of evidentiary support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether Mother met the §25-408(F)(1) emergency-relocation exception | Mother: move was necessitated by eviction, health (high-risk pregnancy), and inability to work | Father: Mother unilaterally moved without qualifying emergency and didn’t meet statutory elements | Held: Court found Mother met §25-408(F)(1); appellate court affirmed (no clear absence of evidence) |
| 2) Whether Mother was improperly subject to a "special" or heightened burden | Mother: burden to prove emergency and best interests (statutory burden) | Father: court improperly shifted or heightened burden because Mother moved while petition was pending | Held: Court applied the statutory burden (relocating parent bears burden); no special burden was imposed |
| 3) Whether the court erred by not addressing Mother’s prior relocations/unilateral move | Mother: prior local moves were not statutory "relocations"; court considered relevant evidence | Father: prior moves and unilateral conduct show instability and should have weighed against Mother | Held: Prior within-metro moves did not qualify as statutory relocations; court not required to address every piece of evidence and credited Mother’s testimony |
| 4) Whether the best-interests findings were supported by the record | Mother: children are well-adjusted, doing better academically and socially in Louisiana; move improves quality of life | Father: court over-relied on Mother’s testimony and ignored contrary evidence of instability; bonding findings unsupported | Held: Record (testimony, school records, doctor’s letter, eviction text) supports the best-interests findings; appellate court will not reweigh credibility or facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. Murray, 239 Ariz. 174 (App. 2016) (standard of review for relocation decisions is abuse of discretion)
- DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420 (App. 2019) (abuse of discretion when ruling lacks evidentiary support or contains legal error)
- Quijada v. Quijada, 246 Ariz. 217 (App. 2019) (de novo review for legal issues)
- Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150 (App. 2015) (trial court best positioned to assess witness credibility)
- Hefner v. Hefner, 248 Ariz. 54 (App. 2019) (burden of proof and standards on appeal)
- Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 134 Ariz. 177 (Ariz. 1982) (reversal only where clear absence of evidence supports findings)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (court must make specific findings on relevant best-interests factors)
- State v. Rivera, 210 Ariz. 188 (2005) (cross-examination as tool to probe witness truthfulness)