Laura Cruz v. Robert Garcia
240 Ariz. 233
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Child L.G. lived primarily with mother Laura Cruz since 2006; father Robert Garcia had limited overnights granted in 2007–2008.
- After a 2013 drug-related search of Cruz’s home, Garcia amended a 2013 petition seeking sole legal decision-making and suspension of Cruz’s parenting time; a Rule 69 temporary stipulation later gave Garcia temporary sole legal decision-making and primary residence.
- Cruz filed to vacate the Rule 69 agreement in January 2015 and requested an evidentiary hearing; a trial was set for August 2015.
- In June 2015 Garcia sought immediate suspension of Cruz’s supervised visitation based on reports (including a letter from the supervising therapist) that visits were harming L.G.; a June 24, 2015 hearing was held limited to suspension of supervised visits.
- At that hearing the court suspended Cruz’s parenting time and, two days later in chambers, issued A.R.S. § 25-403(B) findings awarding Garcia permanent sole legal decision-making and primary residence; Cruz appealed alleging denial of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Cruz’s Argument | Garcia’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court violated due process by awarding permanent legal decision-making without notice or evidentiary hearing | Cruz: Court made final decision on legal decision-making without notice or opportunity to present evidence; she requested an evidentiary hearing | Garcia: Cruz waived objection; alternatively, prior hearings and filings provided sufficient evidence to support the ruling | Court: Vacated orders and remanded — Cruz was denied due process because she lacked notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on legal decision-making; suspension of parenting time also lacked required procedural protections |
| Whether court could sua sponte revoke parenting time under § 25-411(J) without notice/hearing | Cruz: Section does not authorize revocation without notice, and emergency exceptions require strict procedures | Garcia: Court may restrict parenting time sua sponte to protect child | Court: § 25-411(J) allows conditions (e.g., supervised visits) but does not permit revocation of parenting time without notice and an opportunity to be heard except under narrow emergency procedures |
| Whether documents and prior hearings suffice as evidentiary basis for custody/legal-decision findings | Cruz: Court relied on unauthenticated hearsay (therapist letter, prior evaluations) not offered/admitted at an evidentiary hearing | Garcia: Prior hearings (2013–2015) and submitted materials supplied admissible support | Court: Reliance on unauthenticated/hearsay materials without adversary testing was insufficient; parties must be allowed to present and test evidence |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Cruz: Requests fees under §§ 25-324, 12-341, 12-341.01 | Garcia: Requests fees under § 25-324 | Court: Denied both parties’ fee requests in discretion; awarded Cruz appellate costs under § 12-341 |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Losnegard, 228 Ariz. 202 (court vacated ruling where trial limited to custody but the court later adjudicated child support without notice or evidence)
- Heidbreder v. Heidbreder, 230 Ariz. 377 (court reversed where party lacked notice that child-support issues would be addressed at a parenting-time/custody hearing)
- Murray v. Murray, 239 Ariz. 174 (when facts on child’s best interests are disputed, parties must be allowed to present evidence before findings)
- DePasquale v. Superior Court, 181 Ariz. 333 (custody cannot be changed without a hearing and without aggrieved parent’s consent; emergency temporary orders are narrowly constrained)
- Hart v. Hart, 220 Ariz. 183 (family court may impose restrictions on parenting time, e.g., supervision, but not broad revocation without due process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of their children)
- Evans v. Evans, 116 Ariz. 302 (parties must have time to prepare and present relevant evidence before custody-modifying orders)
Disposition: The appellate court vacated the June 24 and June 26, 2015 orders and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on parenting time and legal decision-making.