Sheets v. Hon. mead/reynolds
356 P.3d 341
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Sheets and Reynolds were partners; both became approved foster parents to Child in 2009 with the plan that Sheets would adopt because same-sex couples could not jointly adopt then.
- Sheets adopted Child in 2010; the relationship later ended and Reynolds continued contact until Sheets cut off visitation in April 2014.
- Reynolds sued for equal-time nonparent visitation under A.R.S. § 25-409(C)(2), alleging an in loco parentis relationship.
- The superior court found Child was "born or adopted out of wedlock," Reynolds had an in loco parentis relationship, and visitation was in Child’s best interests; it awarded substantial visitation and denied attorneys’ fees to both parties.
- Sheets petitioned for special action, arguing the court lacked statutory authority because Child’s adoption made her legally born in wedlock under A.R.S. § 8-117(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sheets) | Defendant's Argument (Reynolds) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-409(C)(2) authorizes nonparent visitation when child was adopted before petition | Adoption makes the child legally born in wedlock under § 8-117(A), so § 25-409(C)(2) (requiring child born out of wedlock) does not apply; court lacked authority | The statutory fiction in § 8-117(A) should not bar § 25-409(C)(2); adoption should not defeat nonparent visitation where in loco parentis relationship exists | Held for Sheets: adoption makes child legally born in wedlock under § 8-117(A), so superior court exceeded its authority and could not award visitation under § 25-409(C)(2) |
| Whether Sheets waived the statutory-authority challenge by failing to raise it below | Issue concerns court’s power under statute and cannot be waived here; merits should be addressed | Argued waiver, but court reviewed on merits | Held for Sheets: court declined to apply waiver doctrine given recurring statutory question; addressed merits |
| Whether appellate court should engage in best-interests analysis | Sheets did not rely on best-interests; scope limited to statutory authority | Reynolds urged best-interests and in loco parentis findings to justify visitation | Held: Court may not perform best-interests analysis when acting beyond statutory authority; it considered only statutory scope |
| Whether superior court abused discretion in denying attorney’s fees to Sheets | Sheets sought fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 after prevailing in special action | Reynolds argued denial was appropriate given factual dispute and fee analysis below | Held: No abuse of discretion; denial of fees affirmed for special action |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Maricopa Cnty. Juv. Act. No. JA-502394, 186 Ariz. 597 (App. 1996) (held adoption statute § 8-117(A) makes adopted child legally as if born in wedlock)
- Finck v. O’Toole, 179 Ariz. 404 (App. 1994) (historical limits on nonparent visitation statutes)
- Fry v. Garcia, 213 Ariz. 70 (App. 2006) (jurisdiction for visitation determined at time of filing; subsequent events may not oust jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Thorn, 235 Ariz. 216 (App. 2014) (discussion of courts’ statutory authority versus subject-matter jurisdiction)