Mangan v. Mangan
227 Ariz. 346
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Mother and Father married in 2001, had two children, and separated in March 2006; Mother and children moved East, with Arizona initially deemed the home state for custody.
- May 2006 Mother filed dissolution in Arizona; October 2006 family court granted dissolution with Mother as primary residential parent and sole custody, Father with parenting time.
- Mother and children moved back to Arizona; February 2008 Father petitioned to enforce parenting time; mediation occurred March 2008 and produced an informal agreement breach by Mother; Mother reportedly planned a move to New Mexico.
- July 2008 Father filed to enforce and later petitions; several hearings proceeded with Mother absences or nonappearance and contempt findings; Mother relocated within New Mexico after being served, with continued noncompliance.
- February 2010 Father filed renewed petition to modify custody; April–May 2010 temporary orders and a May 14, 2010 hearing; the court reaffirmed Arizona’s home-state jurisdiction and scheduled trial.
- August 27, 2010 the family court, after trial, reaffirmed Arizona’s exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and granted Father primary custody with Mother parenting time; ordered fees of $10,000 to Father; Mother timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify the initial custody order. | Mangan contends Arizona relinquished jurisdiction after relocation to New Mexico. | Mangan demonstrated ongoing connection to Arizona; Arizona remained the home state; no relinquishment occurred. | Arizona retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify. |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded attorneys' fees to Father under § 25-324. | Mother argues fees were improper due to financial disparity considerations not being properly balanced with reasonableness. | Court properly weighed financial resources and reasonableness of positions; sanctions appropriate. | The fee award was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Tonnessen, 189 Ariz. 225 (App. 1997) (UCCJEA initial jurisdiction standard)
- Willie G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 231 (App. 2005) (statutory interpretation and jurisdiction review)
- Melgar v. Campo, 215 Ariz. 605 (App. 2007) (exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA)
- Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 202 Ariz. 201 (App. 2002) (UCCJEA jurisdiction and home-state concepts)
- In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156 (App. 1983) (attorney’s fees and discretion under § 25-324)
- Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589 (App. 2004) (factors for § 25-324 fee awards; financial disparity or unreasonableness)
- Duwyenie v. Moran, 220 Ariz. 501 (App. 2009) (contempt and jurisdictional considerations in UCCJEA)