Prescott v. Prescott, 1 CA-CV 15-0669-FC

Background

Parents divorced in 2014; decree awarded joint legal decision-making, mother primary residential parent, and father limited parenting time and child support obligations.
Father filed a 2015 petition to modify custody, seeking sole legal decision-making, primary residential designation, and child support from mother after alleging the mother’s older son sexually abused the parties’ daughter; mother filed a cross-petition seeking sole legal decision-making citing father’s DUI non-disclosure, false sexual-abuse allegations, and poor co-parenting.
After an evidentiary hearing, the family court found changed circumstances, concluded modification was in the child’s best interest, and awarded mother sole legal decision-making and expanded-but-limited parenting time to father (alternate weekends, one week in summer, alternating holidays).
The court found father made false or unsupported allegations of sexual abuse, coached the child, delayed reporting until after litigation over his noncompliance, and engaged in conduct undermining co-parenting and subjecting the child to unnecessary evaluations.
The court awarded mother attorney’s fees under A.R.S. §§ 25-324 and 25-415, finding father acted unreasonably and did not file his petition in good faith.
Father appealed; the appellate court affirmed, noting (1) broad trial-court discretion in custody modifications, (2) missing transcripts and an incomplete record on appeal required assuming the record supports the trial court, and (3) the trial court’s findings were supported by competent evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Prescott, mother)	Defendant's Argument (Prescott, father)	Held
Whether sole legal decision-making should be awarded to mother	Mother argued father made false abuse allegations, failed to comply with orders, and undermined co-parenting, so sole authority is in child’s best interest	Father argued the court’s award lacked evidentiary support and misweighed his testimony; contested findings of poor choices and impact on child	Affirmed: trial court’s findings on statutory best-interest factors were supported and within discretion
Whether trial judge was biased	Mother contended father’s conduct justified award; implicit reliance on court’s credibility findings	Father argued the decision stemmed from judicial bias against him	Affirmed: no evidence of extrajudicial bias; presumption of judicial impartiality stands
Whether appellate record deficiencies require reversal	Mother asked for sanctions; court noted missing transcripts	Father failed to provide transcripts and adequate citations; argued error despite incomplete record	Affirmed: missing transcripts and inadequate briefing mean appellate court assumes record supports trial court; appeal not found frivolous but lacks grounds to overturn
Whether attorney’s fees award to mother was proper	Mother sought fees under statutes based on father’s unreasonable litigation, false claims, and lack of good faith	Father argued he did not present a false claim and fees were improper	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees given findings father acted unreasonably and petition lacked good faith

Key Cases Cited

Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418 (App. 2003) (custody-modification standard and deference to trial court)
State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27 (App. 2003) (record on appeal must include transcripts; appellate deference when evidence supports ruling)
Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70 (App. 1995) (absent portions of record, appellate court assumes missing material supports trial court)
Downs v. Scheffler, 206 Ariz. 496 (App. 2003) (requirement that trial court consider statutory factors in custody decisions)
Rowe v. Rowe, 154 Ariz. 616 (App. 1987) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence and defers to credibility determinations)
State v. Hurley, 197 Ariz. 400 (App. 2000) (presumption of judicial impartiality; burden to prove bias)
In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156 (App. 1983) (standard of review for attorney-fees awards in family-law matters)