Pack v. Pack, 1 CA-CV 16-0532-FC

Background

Susan Pack (Mother) and Steven Pack (Father) divorced in 2006; Mother was granted sole legal decision-making authority regarding the children.
In October 2012 the superior court ordered an equal week-on/week-off parenting schedule contingent on Father complying with treating health professionals’ recommendations (including administering prescribed medication); an alternative reduced schedule would apply if Father failed to comply.
After reports Father did not give prescribed medication, the court in December 2013 reaffirmed Mother’s sole legal decision-making and required both parents to administer medication as prescribed; Mother could use blood testing to verify compliance and the court warned it would alter Father’s parenting time for noncompliance.
Mother later filed emergency motions and sought modification after alleging continued failures by Father to provide medication and additional co-parenting problems; Father countered that Mother withheld medication and accused her of alienation and dishonesty.
After an evidentiary hearing the superior court found no substantial and continuing change in circumstances to justify modifying parenting time or legal decision-making and denied Mother’s requested enforcement/alternative schedule; Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother proved a substantial and continuing change in circumstances warranting modification of parenting time	Father’s failure to administer prescribed medication, poor communication, co-parenting interference, and alleged abuse justified reducing Father’s parenting time	Co-parenting problems result from Mother’s hostility; Father denied abuse and asserted Mother withheld medication and alienated children	Court affirmed: no substantial and continuing change proven; trial court didn’t abuse discretion
Whether the court was required to implement the October 2012/Dec 2013 “alternative” reduced parenting schedule upon a single noncompliance incident	October 2012/Dec 2013 orders created an automatic consequence: implement alternative schedule when Father fails even once to comply with health professionals’ recommendations	The orders were not automatic; enforcement/modification requires a new court determination; circumstances had changed since earlier orders	Court held law‑of‑the‑case inapplicable; alternative schedule not automatically triggered because evidence showed no ongoing refusal and some noncompliance stemmed from Mother withholding medication
Whether the superior court abused discretion by rejecting Mother’s evidence/credibility	Mother argued trial court should accept her evidence and enforce alternative schedule	Court relied on prior findings (including Mother’s alienation) and credibility determinations; appellate court must defer	Affirmed: appellate court gives deference to trial court credibility and factual determinations
Whether Mother was entitled to appellate attorneys’ fees as sanction or under family‑law fee statute	Mother sought attorneys’ fees on appeal	Father opposed fees	Court denied Mother’s request and awarded costs to Father if he complies with ARCAP 21

Key Cases Cited

Pridgeon v. Super. Ct., 134 A.2d 177 (Ariz. 1982) (framework: court must find change in circumstances before analyzing child’s best interests)
Powell‑Cerkoney v. TCR‑Mont. Ranch Joint Venture, II, 176 Ariz. 275 (App. 1993) (law of the case is procedural and inapplicable when manifest injustice or substantial factual change exists)
Estate of Reinen v. N. Ariz. Orthopedics, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 283 (App. 2000) (trial court need not accept interested party’s uncontradicted evidence)
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. 343 (App. 1998) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99 (App. 2003) (child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations)