Ryan v. Rubalcaba
1 CA-CV 21-0078-FC
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Apr 7, 2022Background
- Unmarried parents (mother Katherine Ryan, father John Rubalcaba) of a child born in 2018 filed competing petitions for paternity, legal decision‑making, parenting time, and child support; matters were consolidated.
- Superior court initially granted mother temporary sole legal decision‑making; after trial it awarded joint legal decision‑making to both parents.
- The court found father had committed domestic violence (orders of protection evidence) but concluded the violence was not "significant" or a "significant history" under A.R.S. § 25‑403.03 and that father rebutted the presumption against joint decision‑making.
- A court‑appointed advisor and a psychological evaluator assessed father and recommended unsupervised parenting time; the court credited those evaluations in finding father able to parent.
- The superior court ordered father to pay $49/month ongoing child support and $1,078 in retroactive support; mother appealed challenging legal decision‑making findings and child support calculations.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the joint legal decision‑making order (no abuse of discretion) but vacated and remanded the child support orders because the child support guidelines were misapplied (credits for other children and retroactive parenting‑time credit were improper or unresolved).
Issues
| Issue | Mother (Plaintiff) Argument | Father (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether superior court abused discretion in awarding joint legal decision‑making by misweighing best‑interest factors | Court misapplied and failed to consider evidence (CAA, psychologist, DCS) and credibility issues favored mother | Court reasonably evaluated evidence; credibility determinations supported findings | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether father committed "significant" domestic violence or has a significant history that precludes joint decision‑making | Father’s OOPs and conduct establish significant domestic violence or history, triggering presumption against joint decision‑making | Incidents were limited in time and severity; not "significant" or a significant history | Affirmed: findings that violence was not "significant" or a significant history were supported; presumption rebutted |
| Whether father rebutted presumption against joint decision‑making after domestic violence finding | Mother: father did not rebut the presumption; court failed to apply § 25‑403.03.E factors correctly | Father: court considered § 25‑403.03.E factors and other evidence (no further incidents; mutual animosity would risk abuse of authority) | Affirmed: court made specific findings on § 25‑403.03.E and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether superior court erred in child support calculations (credits for other children and retroactive parenting time) | Court improperly credited father for support of other children and for equal parenting time in arrearage calculation | Father argued he was entitled to deductions/credits under guidelines and equal parenting time credit | Reversed in part: vacated and remanded child support orders—court misapplied 2018 guidelines (credits/deductions and retroactive parenting time); remand to resolve proper deductions and parenting‑time credit under applicable guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297 (App. 2013) (standard of review for legal decision‑making orders)
- Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469 (App. 2018) (abuse of discretion defined as ruling without competent evidence or legal error)
- DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420 (App. 2019) (framework for testing whether domestic violence is "significant" and for rebutting presumption)
- Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48 (App. 2009) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or credibility)
- Richard M. v. Patrick M., 248 Ariz. 492 (App. 2020) (deference to superior court credibility findings)
- Simpson v. Simpson, 224 Ariz. 224 (App. 2010) (retroactive support must apply guidelines to actual past parenting time)
- Sherman v. Sherman, 241 Ariz. 110 (App. 2016) (interpretation of child support guidelines reviewed de novo; awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 226 Ariz. 356 (App. 2011) (standards for reviewing guideline interpretation)
- In re Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574 (1999) (appellate review limited to whether substantial evidence supports trial court)
- Pridgeon v. Super. Ct., 134 Ariz. 177 (1982) (appellate review of findings regarding domestic violence)
- State v. Rhome, 235 Ariz. 459 (App. 2014) (courts may take judicial notice of their own records)
- Henry v. Cook, 189 Ariz. 42 (App. 1996) (partial success on appeal permits recovery of costs)