Matthews v. Robles ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                      NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    In re the Matter of:
    DUSTIN MATTHEWS, Petitioner/Appellant,
    v.
    ROSEANN ROBLES, Respondent/Appellee.
    No. 1 CA-CV 16-0774 FC
    FILED 10-26-2017
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. FC2012-093973
    The Honorable Richard J. Hinz, Judge Pro Tempore
    AFFIRMED
    APPEARANCES
    Dustin Matthews, Tempe
    Petitioner/Appellant
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Margaret H. Downie joined.
    MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
    Decision of the Court
    C A M P B E L L, Judge:
    ¶1            Dustin Matthews (“Father”) appeals the denial of his petition
    to enforce parenting time and the award of attorney fees in favor of Roseann
    Robles (“Mother”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    ¶2           Pursuant to a paternity judgment entered in December 2013,
    Father and Mother were awarded joint legal decision-making authority
    with Father having parenting time during the week from 6:30 a.m. through
    4:30 p.m. and alternating weekends.
    ¶3            In September 2016, Father filed a petition to enforce, seeking
    to compel Mother’s compliance with the parenting time order. The
    underlying facts were not disputed. The maternal grandparents picked up
    the child from day care on weekdays prior to 4:30 p.m. Father did not get
    off work until 5 p.m. If Father could leave work early, he called Mother to
    request the child be left at day care—in that case, Father picked up the child
    and parented him until 4:30 p.m. Mother testified she would have made the
    child available to Father by having the maternal grandparents return with
    the child had he asked. According to Mother, “[t]hat’s not ever actually
    come up as an issue thus far.”
    ¶4             After an evidentiary hearing, the family court denied the
    petition, finding as follows:
    Mother is not refusing to allow Father to exercise his
    parenting time. The parties need to communicate in an open
    and honest manner about the welfare of the child. If Father is
    able to leave work early to exercise his parenting time
    Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., he shall
    communicate such to Mother at least 30 minutes in advance.
    If Mother or the maternal grandparents pick the child up
    early, the Court does not find it constitutes a violation of
    Father’s parenting time as it appears that Mother is willing to
    allow Father to have the child at that time if Father is able to
    leave work early.
    ¶5             Thereafter, the family court awarded Mother $850 in attorney
    fees, concluding that Father’s position was unreasonable because (i) he was
    never denied “any physical parenting time” and (ii) “it is mainly an issue
    of control for [him].” See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 25-324 (attorney fees).
    MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
    Decision of the Court
    Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S.
    § 12-2101(A)(2). See In re Marriage of Dorman, 
    198 Ariz. 298
    , 300, ¶ 3 (App.
    2000).1
    DISCUSSION
    I.     Petition to Enforce Parenting Time
    ¶6            Father argues the family court (1) “revoked” his
    constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and
    control of the child without due process and (2) “violated” his right under
    Arizona law to make routine decisions regarding the child during his
    parenting time, i.e., whether it was acceptable for the maternal
    grandparents to pick up the child before 4:30 p.m. See A.R.S. § 25-401(2), (5).
    ¶7            We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining
    the family court’s ruling, deferring to its factual findings unless clearly
    erroneous. Vincent v. Nelson, 
    238 Ariz. 150
    , 155, ¶ 17 (App. 2015); Walsh v.
    Walsh, 
    230 Ariz. 486
    , 490, ¶ 9 (App. 2012). We defer to the family court to
    decide witness credibility and weight to give the evidence. Gutierrez v.
    Gutierrez, 
    193 Ariz. 343
    , 347-48, ¶ 13 (App. 1998). We review de novo
    questions of law, including the interpretation of a decree or court order.
    Danielson v. Evans, 
    201 Ariz. 401
    , 406, ¶ 13 (App. 2001). We also review de
    novo an alleged denial of due process. Jeff D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 
    239 Ariz. 205
    , 207, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).
    ¶8             Father argues the family court “revoked” his constitutional
    right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of the
    child without due process. But a party asserting a denial of due process
    must show prejudice, e.g., Gamboa v. Metzler, 
    223 Ariz. 399
    , 402, ¶ 17 (App.
    2010), and Father has shown none. Father also argues the court “violated”
    his right under Arizona law to make routine decisions regarding the child
    during his parenting time, i.e., whether it was “acceptable” for the maternal
    grandparents to pick up the child before 4:30 p.m. See A.R.S. § 25-401(2), (5).
    Even assuming an error on this basis, the error was harmless. See Ariz. R.
    Fam. Law P. 86 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard
    any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial
    rights of the parties.”). Father offers no persuasive explanation why it was
    unacceptable for the maternal grandparents to pick the child up early from
    1 Mother did not file an answering brief. In our discretion, we decline
    to consider her failure to file an answering brief a confession of reversible
    error. See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 
    134 Ariz. 437
    , 437 (App. 1982).
    MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
    Decision of the Court
    day care when such action does not prevent him from exercising his allotted
    parenting time.
    II.    Attorney Fees
    ¶9             Father argues the family court erred by awarding Mother
    attorney fees under A.R.S. § 25-324 because she did not request fees on this
    basis, his “reasonableness was not in question” within the meaning of the
    statute, and the court failed to evaluate the financial resources of both
    parties. We review de novo questions of law, including the application of a
    fee statute. Burke v. Ariz. State Ret. Sys., 
    206 Ariz. 269
    , 272, ¶ 6 (App. 2003);
    Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan, 
    235 Ariz. 204
    , 205, ¶ 5 (App. 2014).
    ¶10            The family court was not required to make findings of fact
    because Father did not request them. See Myrick v. Maloney, 
    235 Ariz. 491
    ,
    494-95, ¶ 10 (App. 2014). Thus, we assume the court resolved each issue of
    fact in a way that supports its decision. See Murren v. Murren, 
    191 Ariz. 335
    ,
    337, ¶ 8 (App. 1998) (citing Crye v. Edwards, 
    178 Ariz. 327
    , 328 (App. 1993));
    Horton v. Mitchell, 
    200 Ariz. 523
    , 526, ¶ 13 (App. 2001). Although A.R.S. §
    25-324 lists “reasonableness” and “financial resources” as factors, a fee
    “applicant need not show both a financial disparity and an unreasonable
    opponent in order to qualify for consideration for an award.” Magee v.
    Magee, 
    206 Ariz. 589
    , 591 n.1, ¶ 8 (App. 2004); see also Rinegar v. Rinegar, 
    231 Ariz. 85
    , 90, ¶ 23 (App. 2012) (recognizing fee award may be based on
    financial disparity alone). The family court’s findings regarding the
    reasonableness of Father’s position were supported by the evidence.
    Accordingly, its decision to award Mother attorney fees was not an abuse
    of discretion.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶11           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the denial of Father’s
    petition to enforce parenting time and the award of attorney fees. Because
    MATTHEWS v. ROBLES
    Decision of the Court
    Father is not the prevailing party, we deny Father’s request for fees and
    costs on appeal.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA