NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION ONE

In re the matter of:

STEPHANIE RHOADS, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

ERIC BAR-HAIM, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV13-0508

FILED 07-01-2014

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2012-071507

The Honorable Jose S. Padilla, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Stephanie Rhoads, Litchfield Park

In Pro Se

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

T H O M P S O N, Judge:
Rhoads v. Bar-Haim

Decision of the Court

2

¶1 Stephanie Rhoads (mother) appeals, representing herself,

from the family court’s judgment. Mother raises several issues related to 

child support, visitation and attorneys’ fees. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 2006, mother and Eric Bar-Haim (father) had a child.

Father acknowledged paternity and they apparently raised the child 

together for the first thirteen months until mother relocated to Arizona. 

In August 2012, mother filed a request to establish child support and 

sought back child support for a period of three years. Father, a resident 

of Maryland, counterclaimed to establish parenting time and child 

custody. The parties filed a Joint Pretrial Statement. A trial was held and 

the family court filed its signed judgment on June 20, 2013, establishing 

child support and deciding certain parenting issues. 

¶3 On July 3, 2013, mother filed a detailed request for 

clarification. Shortly thereafter, and prior to any ruling on the motion for 

clarification, mother filed an appeal from the judgment raising most of the 

same issues raised in her motion for clarification. The family court heard 

argument and ruled on the motion for clarification in October 2013 in 

another signed minute entry and prior to mother filing her opening brief. 

The family court granted “clarification” on several items which resulted in 

change of the monthly child support due from father from $381.79 to 

$670.11 after consideration of mother’s payment of health insurance and 

the actual parenting time awarded in the prior minute entry. Mother filed 

her opening brief. Father did not file an answering brief. 

DISCUSSION

¶4 On appeal mother asserts the family court erred in:

1. Awarding her only three years of back child support and in 

giving father credit for supporting two other minor children 

when calculating that support;

2. Not attributing unreimbursed medical expenses as between 

mother and father;

3. Failing to adequately allocate travel expenses and denying 

her request that travel only be allowed if father was up to 

date on support;

4. Not allowing communication via telephone as well as Skype;
Rhoads v. Bar-Haim

Decision of the Court

3

5. Awarding mother only $500.00 in attorneys’ fees for her 

successful motion to compel; and

6. Failing to award attorneys’ fees.

 

¶5 Family court decisions regarding child support, child 

custody and parenting issues are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. 

Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418, 420 ¶ 7, 79 P.3d 667, 669 (App. 2003);

McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 30, ¶ 6, 49 P.3d 300, 302 (App. 2002); 

A.R.S. § 25-320 (2007). An abuse of discretion occurs only “when the 

record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s 

decision, is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support’ the decision.” Little 

v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520-21, ¶ 6, 975 P.2d 108, 110-11 (1999). We do not 

reweigh the evidence because the court, as the trier of fact, determines the 

credibility of witnesses and the facts to make its decision. Mary Lou C. v. 

Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47 ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004).

¶6 We address, first, mother’s assertions as they relate to back 

child support. Mother argues on appeal that the family court should have 

awarded her more than three years back child support and that it erred in 

giving father credit for supporting two children during all of those three 

years. We disagree. Not only was the three years of back child support 

the amount specifically requested in mother’s Joint Pretrial Statement, it 

was the maximum amount of back support that the family court had 

statutory authority to award on this record. See A.R.S. § 25-320(C) (2007) 

(court “may” order back support “but not [for] more than three years 

before” the filing of the pleadings); see also A.R.S. § 25-809(B) (2007). As to 

mother’s claim that father should not have been credited for supporting 

two other minor children when calculating the amount of back support,

because one of the children wasn’t born until late 2011, we cannot find 

that the overall sum awarded as back child support constituted an abuse 

of discretion. See McNutt, 203 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 6, 49 P.3d at 302; A.R.S. § 25-

320(C) (back support is not mandatory, but discretionary).

1 

 

1 The record could have supported a finding that father has five children 

total, including the two youngest children with his current wife. No 

evidence was presented as to how much support father actually provides 

to any of his children. 
Rhoads v. Bar-Haim

Decision of the Court

4

¶7 Mother’s next issues relate to the allocation of medical and 

travel expenses, the form of communication between father and the child

and to mother’s request that travel only be allowed if father was up to 

date on support. These issues were addressed in the minute entry of 

October 18, 2013. The family court found that the medical expenses were 

to be divided 67% to father and 33% to mother and the travel expenses to 

be divided 61% to father and 39% to mother. The court denied her request 

to only allow travel if father was up to date on child support. The family 

court ordered communication to continue via Skype. We have reviewed 

those determinations for an abuse of discretion and find none. See Owen, 

206 Ariz. at 420 ¶ 7, 79 P.3d at 669.

¶8 Mother’s next two issues concern attorneys’ fees. 

Specifically, mother complains that the $500.00 awarded for her successful 

motion to compel was inadequate and that she was entitled to a fee award

for her pursuit of the child support. We review a decision to award fees 

or to not award fees under an abuse of discretion standard. City of 

Cottonwood v. Fann, 179 Ariz. 185, 195, 877 P.2d 284, 294 (App. 1994). 

While mother was billed more than the amount later awarded by the court

for the motion to compel, that does not make the amount either billed or 

awarded inappropriate. Attorneys’ fee awards are to be determined in a 

“reasonable amount” as determined by the court under the circumstances. 

See A.R.S. § 25-809(G) (2007); A.R.S. § 25-324 (2007). As to the general 

request for fees made in mother’s Joint Pretrial Statement, given the 

relative financial positions of the two parties at trial, we find no abuse of 

discretion in the determination not to award additional attorneys’ fees in 

addition to the sanctioned fees.

2

CONCLUSION

¶9 We affirm the decisions of the family court. 

 

2 We note that the ongoing record in this matter indicates that father filed 

a motion to modify child support claiming an income of $0.00.