Thompson v. Thompson, 1 CA-CV 16-0777-FC

Parents entered a consent decree awarding joint legal decision-making; Mother had final decision-making if parents disagreed. Father obligated to pay $300/month spousal maintenance and $888/month child support.
Decree required parties to divide uninsured medical and similar expenses for the children in proportion to income (Father 70%, Mother 30%).
Mother sought reimbursement of ~$418 for naturopathic allergy tests for the two older children (the youngest had already tested positive and Father paid his share for that test). Father refused, arguing naturopathic care was not covered.
Mother also sought judgment for a $352 spousal maintenance arrearage; Father claimed timing of paychecks would cure the shortfall by year-end.
The superior court denied reimbursement for the allergy tests (finding naturopathic care not within the listed categories) and declined to enter a judgment for the small spousal arrearage; Mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether trial court must enter judgment for past-due spousal maintenance	Court must enter written judgment for arrearage upon petition	Shortfall is a timing artifact; will be cured without judgment	Reversed: court had mandatory duty to enter judgment for arrearage (Cooper)
Whether naturopathic allergy-test costs are "uninsured medical" under decree	Tests were reasonable, performed by a licensed naturopathic doctor; hence reimbursable	Naturopathic doctor is not "medical" and tests not covered or insured	Reversed: Arizona law recognizes naturopathic medicine; tests fall within uninsured medical expenses
Whether tests must be "medically necessary" to be reimbursable under the decree	Decree requires only that expenses be reasonable, not medically necessary	Relied on Smith to argue necessity required	Smith distinguished: decree here did not impose a necessity requirement; Mother met reasonableness burden
Whether Mother should receive attorney's fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 25‑324(A)	Requested fees; represented pro bono but eligible for market-rate fees	Father opposed fee award	Denied: positions not unreasonable but litigation was economically disproportionate to amount; Mother awarded costs on appeal only

Cooper v. Cooper, 167 Ariz. 482 (App. 1990) (trial court must enter written judgment for arrearages when petitioned)
Cohen v. Frey, 215 Ariz. 62 (App. 2007) (final decree interpreted as independent court resolution; courts construe decrees de novo)
Palmer v. Palmer, 217 Ariz. 67 (App. 2007) (decrees are interpreted de novo)
Smith v. Smith, 133 Ariz. 384 (App. 1982) (reimbursement for orthodontics denied where necessity for health not established)
Thompson v. Corry, 231 Ariz. 161 (App. 2012) (pro bono representation does not bar recovery of market-rate attorney fees)
Navajo Nation v. MacDonald, 180 Ariz. 539 (App. 1994) (appellate courts generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal)