Lopez v. Raygoza
1 CA-CV 16-0761-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Mother (Krystle Lopez) sought sole legal decision-making and no parenting time for Father; Father sought joint decision-making and equal time. The child A.R. was about three at filing.
- A Court-Appointed Advisor (CAA) and DCS investigated sexual-abuse allegations against a relative living with Mother; Father kept A.R. despite DCS instructions and parties had documented conflict and substance-use issues.
- The superior court temporarily placed A.R. with Father, ordered Mother to submit to drug testing (positive results), and limited Mother to weekly supervised parenting time (initially supervised by grandmother, later at a nonprofit when parties disagreed about supervision).
- Father filed an expedited motion alleging Mother violated the order by unsupervised parenting time; the court set the dispute for the final trial on legal decision-making and parenting time.
- Mother moved to continue five days before trial citing cancer treatment and late-received documents; the court denied the continuance, conducted a time-limited trial, granted Father sole legal decision-making, primary residence with Father, and weekly supervised parenting time for Mother at the nonprofit.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did court err by modifying pretrial parenting-time procedure without an evidentiary hearing? | Court abused discretion by not holding a hearing before ordering supervised time at the nonprofit. | Order was temporary and procedural; not appealable and court merely affirmed prior orders. | No reversible error; temporary order not separately appealable and Mother showed no prejudice. |
| Did denial of Mother’s motion to continue trial abuse discretion? | Continuance required because of imminent cancer treatment and newly received DPS/PD documents. | Motion lacked specifics and medical proof; no good cause shown. | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; proffer insufficient. |
| Was Mother denied due process at trial (time limits and alleged impairment)? | Court cut off evidence, refused witnesses/exhibits, and proceeded while Mother was on medication. | Court imposed reasonable, neutral time limits; Mother never asked for more time or a continuance for impairment. | No due-process violation: Mother had meaningful opportunity, waived impairment claim, and did not show prejudice or offer proof of missing evidence. |
| Did court improperly abdicate its factfinding by adopting the CAA’s recommendations for best interests? | Court improperly relied on the CAA instead of making independent findings. | Court made detailed statutory best-interests findings consistent with the CAA; independent judgment evident. | No abuse of discretion; court made specific findings and independently decided best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Shields, 175 Ariz. 166 (explains due process notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462 (trial courts may impose reasonable time limits if no deprivation of meaningful opportunity)
- Gamboa v. Metzler, 223 Ariz. 399 (trial management and prejudice requirement when time limits are asserted to harm a party)
- Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270 (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody determinations)
- Dykeman v. Ashton, 8 Ariz. App. 327 (standard for reviewing continuance denials)
- Brown v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 194 Ariz. 85 (appellant must show how denial of time harmed the case)
- In re Marriage of Molloy, 181 Ariz. 146 (prejudice requirement when challenging procedural hearing omissions)