Matthews v. Robles
1 CA-CV 18-0704-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Nov 5, 2019Background
- Dustin Matthews (Father) and Roseann Robles (Mother) share one child, D.M. (born 2011); original decree (Dec 2013) provided joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time.
- Mother moved from Tempe to Avondale; court ordered the child attend a school equidistant between homes; parents used open enrollment to place D.M. at Kenilworth Elementary.
- D.M. exhibited severe behavioral problems and was expelled from Kenilworth shortly after enrollment; parents could not agree on an alternative school, and school officials recommended enrollment in the child’s home-district school.
- Mother filed an emergency petition (Aug 15, 2017) seeking sole final legal decision-making for educational issues; the court issued a temporary without-notice order then, after hearing, granted Mother final educational decision-making authority.
- Father filed multiple child-support modification petitions, claimed the child on his 2017 taxes, and contested Mother’s compliance with payment procedures; the court found Mother current on support and ordered Father to amend his 2017 return to remove D.M. as a dependent.
- On Oct 9, 2018 the court denied Father’s requests to modify parenting time and child support, awarded Mother partial attorneys’ fees (~$3,000), and affirmed Mother’s final educational decision-making authority; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Matthews) | Defendant's Argument (Robles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of temporary emergency order | Temporary order and related rulings were erroneous and reviewable on appeal | Temporary orders are not appealable; proper remedy is special action | Court: lacks jurisdiction to review temporary order on this appeal; special action is proper route |
| Modification of legal decision-making (education) | Filing was untimely under §25-411 and facts do not show material change to justify transfer of educational decision-making to Mother | Child’s expulsion, severe behavioral issues, relocation, and parents’ inability to cooperate endangered child and justified immediate modification | Court: no abuse of discretion; one-year bar excused by evidence of risk to child; there was a material change and Mother awarded final educational decision-making |
| Modification of parenting time | Mother’s relocation and school placement reduced Father’s parenting time and warranted modification | Relocation and school placement did not change the exchange logistics or materially affect parenting time | Court: no material change affecting parenting time; denied Father’s request to modify parenting time |
| Attorneys’ fees & tax exemption enforcement | Father sought attorneys’ fees and contest of Mother’s fee award; claimed he should retain the 2017 tax exemption | Mother sought attorneys’ fees for litigation conduct and partial award; sought enforcement of tax-exemption provision because she paid support and was entitled to the exemption | Court: denied Father’s fee requests; affirmed award of partial fees to Mother as within discretion; found Mother current on support and ordered Father to amend 2017 return to remove child as dependent unless parties agreed otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Gutierrez v. Fox, 242 Ariz. 259 (temporary orders are not appealable)
- Sundstrom v. Flatt, 244 Ariz. 136 (procedural noncompliance with §25‑411 not reversible on appeal absent prejudice)
- In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298 (errors in preliminary procedures must be addressed prior to merits)
- Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (appellate standard — legal decision-making reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Canty v. Canty, 178 Ariz. 443 (material change in circumstances required to modify custody/parenting orders)
- Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99 (best interests and §25‑403(A) factors govern legal decision-making)
- MacMillan v. Schwartz, 226 Ariz. 584 (court may award fees based on unreasonable litigation positions)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arrington, 192 Ariz. 255 (fee/cost awards will be upheld if they have any reasonable basis)