Matthews v. Robles
1 CA-CV 16-0774-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Parents were awarded joint legal decision-making in a 2013 paternity judgment; Father had weekday parenting time 6:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m. and alternating weekends.
- Father filed a 2016 petition to enforce, claiming Mother (through maternal grandparents) picked the child up from daycare before 4:30 p.m., interfering with his parenting time.
- Father typically could not leave work until 5:00 p.m.; when he could leave early he called Mother to have the child kept at daycare so he could pick up and parent until 4:30 p.m.
- Mother testified she would have made the child available if Father asked and denied refusing to allow Father to exercise parenting time.
- The family court denied enforcement, finding Mother was not refusing access and ordering better communication (Father to give 30 minutes’ notice when he can leave early).
- The court awarded Mother $850 in attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324, finding Father’s petition unreasonable; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s constitutional due-process and statutory parenting-time rights were violated by early pick-ups | Court "revoked" Father’s right to make decisions and denied routine decision-making during his parenting time | Mother did not refuse access; grandparents picked up for logistical reasons and would have returned child if asked | Court rejected due-process claim (no prejudice) and found any error harmless; denied enforcement |
| Whether the maternal grandparents’ early pick-ups violated Father’s parenting time | Early pick-ups prevented Father from exercising control during his parenting time | Early pick-ups did not prevent Father from exercising his allotted time and Mother was willing to cooperate if asked | Court held pick-ups did not constitute a violation and emphasized communication requirement |
| Whether the family court erred in awarding attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 | Fees improper because Mother did not seek them on that basis, Father’s position was reasonable, and court failed to evaluate finances | Father’s petition was unreasonable and fees appropriate under statutory factors | Court affirmed fee award: findings of unreasonableness supported; court need not make findings Father didn’t request; fee award not abuse of discretion |
| Whether the family court’s factual findings or failure to make specific findings require reversal | Denied; factual findings were erroneous or insufficient | Findings supported by evidence; appellant didn’t request findings | Court defers to family court findings and assumes facts resolved to support decision; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150 (App. 2015) (appellate deference to family court factual findings)
- Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486 (App. 2012) (standard for reviewing family court factual findings)
- Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1998) (credibility and weight of evidence for family court)
- Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401 (App. 2001) (de novo review for interpretation of decree or order)
- Jeff D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 239 Ariz. 205 (App. 2016) (de novo review for alleged denial of due process)
- Gamboa v. Metzler, 223 Ariz. 399 (App. 2010) (prejudice required to show denial of due process)
- Magee v. Magee, 206 Ariz. 589 (App. 2004) (fee award under § 25-324 may be based on either reasonableness or financial disparity)
- Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491 (App. 2014) (court not required to make findings if party does not request them)
- Rinegar v. Rinegar, 231 Ariz. 85 (App. 2012) (recognizing fee awards may be justified by financial disparity alone)