Robert J Nicaise Jr v. Aparna Sundaram
245 Ariz. 566
Ariz.2019Background
- Parents involved in a contested custody dispute over an eight-year-old; extensive family-court findings included allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and medical neglect.
- Family court awarded joint legal decision-making to both parents but specified that Father would have final decision-making authority for medical, mental-health, dental, and therapy issues if parents could not agree after good-faith consultation.
- Court of Appeals sua sponte concluded that giving one parent "final" authority over certain matters effectively converted joint decision-making into sole legal decision-making and so characterized those portions of the decree as sole decision-making.
- Mother sought review only of the Court of Appeals’ recharacterization of the family-court order (i.e., whether final decision-making converts joint into sole decision-making).
- Arizona Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether an award of joint legal decision-making that includes a parent’s final-tie-breaking authority is legally the same as an award of sole legal decision-making.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nicaise) | Defendant's Argument (Sundaram) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does granting "final" decision authority to one parent convert joint legal decision-making into sole legal decision-making? | The Court of Appeals (as characterized on appeal) held that any superior/final authority given to one parent means the award is in substance sole decision-making. | The family-court order preserved joint decision-making with a limited exception—final/tie-breaking authority does not equal sole legal decision-making. | The Supreme Court held the two are distinct: final/tie-breaking authority within a joint award does not automatically convert it into sole legal decision-making. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. DES v. Pandola, 243 Ariz. 418 (2018) (standard of review for statutory interpretation is de novo)
- State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Hayden, 210 Ariz. 522 (2005) (statutes should be read in context and with attention to the whole text)
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 209 Ariz. 544 (2005) (interpretation should avoid rendering statutory language superfluous)
- In re Marriage of Friedman & Roels, 244 Ariz. 111 (2018) (illustrates practice of awarding joint decision-making with one parent having final authority)
- In re Marriage of Worcester, 192 Ariz. 24 (1998) (similar practice recognizing final/tie-breaking authority within joint decision-making)