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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

In r e the Matter of:

DONELLE C. WHEELER , Petitioner /Appell ant ,

v.

ERNIE A. JONES , Respondent /Appell ee

.
No. 1 CA

- CV 19

- 0 578 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC 201 3

- 00 5208 The Honorable Michael C. Blair
, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED

COUNSEL

P angerl Law Firm
, P

. L

. L

. C

. , Phoenix By Regina M. Pangerl Counsel for Petitioner/Appell ant

Ernie A. Jones, Litchfield Park Respondent/Appell ee FILED 9-3-2020WHEELER v. JONES Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge David B. Gass and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

P E R K I N S , Judge:

¶1 Donelle C. Wheeler (“Mother”) appeals the denial of her petition to modify legal decision

- making authorit y and parenting time orders and the attorneys’ fees award. For the following reasons
, we vacate the order denying Mother’s petition and remand

.

FACT UAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Ernie A. Jones (“Father”) lived together for

severa l years and have two children
, M.J. , born in 2004 , and J .J., born in 20 07

. I n January 2013, a fter the parties separ ated, Mother petition ed to establish sole legal decision

- making authority , parenting time, and child support. Father filed a report with the e ntity now known as Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) accusing Mother of abusing the children . I n September 2013 , the superior court awarded Father emergency t emporary sole legal decision

- making authority and ordered Mother to have supervised parenting time “as o utlined by [DCS].”

¶3 At the temporary orders hearing in November 2013
, the superior court found that Father failed to submit to a court

- ordered drug
test and admitted he would have test ed positive for marijuana. The court also noted that DCS had closed its investigation of Mother and no evidence support ed continuing supervised parenting time

. The court ordered temporary joint legal decision

- making authority , but based on Father’s substance abuse problem
, the court awarded Mother primary physical custody of the children, ordered Father to participate in the Family Drug Court program , and appointed a court

- appointed advisor (“CAA”). The court also appointed a best interests attorney (“BIA”) for the children. Father successfully completed all Fa mily Drug Court requirements and was later released from the program.

¶4 In preparing a report for trial, the BIA became concerned that Mother was abusing M.J. and contacted DCS. As a result, DCS placed M.J. with Father. In October 2014, f ollowing a trial, the superior court awardedWHEELER v. JONES Decision of the Court

3 Father sole legal decision

- making authority and primary physical custody
, and granted Mother u nsupervised parenting ti me with J.J. every other weekend and Wednesday evenings. In its October 2014 Final Paternity Orders (“2014 Order”) the court granted Mother supervised parenting time with M

. J

. until “DCS opines that unsupervised visitation is appropriate” and when that occurred , Mother would have unsupervised parenting time with both children every other weekend and one evening a week

. ¶5 Mother filed her first petition to modify legal decision

making authority and parenting time in May 2016. The superior court held an evidentiary hearing in December 201 6 and found no material change of circumstances since the prior order

. Mother filed a se cond petition to modify in May 2017. The court held another evidentiary hearing and again, found no material change of circumstances affecting the children’s best interests and denied the motion in October 2017

. ¶6 In May 2018, Mother filed a third petition to modify, accompanied by a motion for an ex parte temporary order to grant Moth e r physical custody and sole legal decision

- making authority. Mother alleged that Father hit J.J. c ausing visible bruising and provided a police r eport of the incident. The court ordered Father to appear and respond to the motion for temporary orders. Mother retained counsel and amended both petition s to include more detailed factual allegations

. A fter an evidentiary hearing, the superior court de clined to issue modified temporary orders

. The court twice ordered Father to submit to a random drug test based on Mother’s allegation that he was using marijuana
, but Father never did so

. ¶7 The superior court held further evidentiary hearing s on Mother’s am ended petition to modify but found no material change of

c ircumstances and denied the petition

. Specifically, the court found DCS did not substantiate th e allegation that Father abused J.J. in May 2018 and the Phoenix Police did not file any charge s against Father

. The court awarded Mother $2500 in attorneys’ fees because Father has greater financial resources and acted unreasonably by disregarding the drug test orders

. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal
, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. sect ion 12

- 2101(A)(1)

.
DISCUSSION

I. Change in Circumstances

¶8 When considering a petition to mod ify legal decision

- making authority and parenting time orders , the superior court engages in a two

step analysis by determining (1) whether a change in circumstancesWHEELER v. JONES Decision of the Court

4 o ccurred that materially affects the children’s welfare, and, if so, (2) whether the children’s best interests requires a change in custody. Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297, 300, ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (citation omitted)

. We review modification of legal decision

- making authority and parenting time order s for an abuse of discretion. Baker v. Meyer, 237 Ariz. 112, 116, ¶ 10 (App. 2015)

. “The [superior] court has broad discretion in determining changed circumstances.” Canty v. Canty, 17 8 Ariz. 443, 448 (App. 1994)

. We “must affirm if any reasonable construction of the evidence justifies the decision.” Stevenson v. Stevenson , 132 Ariz. 44, 46 (1982) . We may only infer findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the trial court’s

or der if “those findings are reasonably supported by the evidence.” Johnson v. Elson , 192 Ariz. 486, 489, ¶ 11 (App. 1998)

. ¶9 Mother argues that the superior court erred in finding there

were no changed circumstances warranting a modification. She contends there were “numerous” changed circumstances since the September 2014 order , including: (1) Father’s renewed drug use
, (2) physical abuse
, (3) lack of communication about the children
, (4) Father restricting the children’s communication with Mother
, (5) den ial of Mother’s parenting time
, (6) the children’s increasing behavior issues at school
, and (7) Mother’s changed personal circumstances

. The superior court explicitly address ed only one of these allegations : physical abuse

. The court’s ruling contains no indication that it considered the other alleged changes in circumstances.

¶10 A.R.S. § 25

- 411(J) does not require the court to make express, written findings about changed circumstances. See Hart v. Hart , 220 Ariz. 183, 187, ¶¶ 16

– 17 (App. 2009) (court will not impose requirement for written findings where the statute only requires that the court “ ‘ find’ certain facts in order to grant the specified relief” but does not require the “findings be reduced to witting or stated on the record”). We wil l affirm the order if it is supported by reasonable evidence and view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding that order. See Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150, 155, ¶ 17 (App. 2015)

. ¶11 At trial, the parties focused almost exclusively on the sec ond analytical step in the modification inquiry: whether the best interests of the children warranted a change in custody. The court’s own questions

— some of which raised the possibility of changing to a week

- on

- week

- off arrangement

— also focused on part two of the relevant analysis

. But the court’s post

- trial conclusion cut off analysis at part one, finding no change in circumstances occurred. A close look at the record suggests that reasonable evidence does not support the court’s conclusion

.WHEELER v. JONES Decision of the Court

5 ¶12 We see this in two specific areas. First, the 2014 Order explicitly relied on the fact that Father attended Family Drug Court and had “done everything the court has asked of him.” In other words, the 2014 Order relied on Father’s resolution of his drug issues and compli ance with court orders related to his drug use. The current record establishes the opposite: Father was repeatedly non

- compliant with the court’s orders for drug testing and admitted ongoing use of marijuana up to and at the time of trial.

¶13 Second, at the time of the 2014 Order, the court found that “the children are adjusted to their school.” But the record shows recent
, significant school

- related issues

. Both children had several unexcused tardy reports and at least one suspension from school

. M.J. engaged in multiple aggressive behavior incidents, ultimately leading to her expulsion from school.

¶14 Because the court’s order does not discuss these issues , we cannot discern the court’s basis for disregard ing these changes. While, as noted above, we do not require detailed, written findings about changed circumstances, we cannot reconcile the lack of such findings coupled with a record that does not support the superior court’s conclusion of no changed circumst ances. We are thus compelled to find the court abused its discretion in concluding there were no changed circumstances . While we decline to find as a matter of law that circumstances changed, we remand the case for the superior court to resolve this discre pancy between the record and its conclusions . The superior court may find it appropriate to hold additional hearings to reach that resolution and to obtain current information on the issues Mother raised in her amended petition to modify.

II. Substance Abuse

¶15 Under A.R.S. § 25

- 403.04 , courts must presume that it goes against the children’s best interests to award sole or joint legal decision

making authority to a parent who has abused drugs or alcohol or has been convicted of a drug offense within the past twe lve months. Mother contends the superior court erred in failing to apply this presump t ion because the evidence shows that Father u sed marijuana.

¶16 Because we are remanding for the superior court to reconsider its ruling on changed circumstances, we need not determine the applicability of this statute

. On remand, if it concludes that Father’s drug

use constitutes a changed circumstance, the superior court will consider A.R.S. § 25

- 403.04 in the normal course of its best interests inquiry.WHEELER v. JONES Decision of the Court

6 III. Attorneys’ Fees

¶17 Mother requested $2 6,431.49 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The court awarded Mother $2 500 because Father had greater financial resources and was unreasonable in failing to dru g test as ordered

. Mother contends the court abused its discretion by not awarding her a greater amount. We

re view an award of attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156 , 167 (App. 1983)

. ¶18 Under A.R.S. § 25

- 324 , the superior court can award attorneys’ fees “after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the pos itions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.” As she did in the superior court
, Mother contends that Father took several unreasonable positions besides refusing to drug test. W e presume the superior court considered the other allegations of unreasonable conduct and found they did not warrant a greater award of attorneys’ fees. M any allegations of unreason ableness stemmed from disputed evidence, such as the alleged child abuse and the reasons for Father’s lack of communication

. We defer to the weight the superior court gives to conflicting evidence and do not re

- weig h evidence on appeal. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 A riz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App. 2009)

. Reasonable evidence supports
t he award of attorneys’ fee s , and so we affirm.

¶19 M other requests attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal. After considering the parties’ financial resources and reasonableness of their positions, we decline to award attorneys’ fees to Mother

. We award Mother her taxable costs on appeal upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21

. See A.R. S. § 12

- 3 42

.
CONCLUSION

¶20 We vacate the superior court’s order denying Mother’s 2018 amended petition to modify parenting time and legal decision

- making. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision

.