NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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:

CHINEDU ONUIGBO, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

SUSAN ONUIGBO, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0134

FILED 1-29-2015

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2008-051474

The Honorable Steven K. Holding, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Chinedu Onuigbo, Glendale

Petitioner/Appellant

Susan Onuigbo, Surprise

Respondent/Appellee
ONUIGBO v. ONUIGBO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Maurice Portley and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Chinedu Onuigbo (“Father”) appeals the family court’s order 

modifying child support in favor of Mother. For the following reasons, we 

affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Susan Onuigbo (“Mother”) have two minor 

children. Father and Mother divorced in 2009. In the decree, the parties

agreed to joint custody of their two children and stipulated that neither 

party be required to pay child support. 

¶3 Father filed a petition to establish child support in 2013. An

evidentiary hearing was held regarding Father’s petition. After the hearing, 

the family court ruled that Father must pay child support to Mother in the 

amount of $153.85 per month. Father filed a motion for reconsideration, 

which was denied. Father timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION 

¶4 Father challenges the family court’s child support award on 

the grounds the court’s income determinations as to the parties was

contrary to the evidence presented at the hearing. Father also argues that 

the family court’s order modifying support in favor of Mother was unfair 

and placed an undue burden on him. 

¶5 We review the decision to modify child support for an abuse 

of discretion. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999). 

We will affirm the family court’s award unless the record, “viewed in the 

light most favorable to upholding the [family] court’s decision, is devoid of 

competent evidence to support the decision.” Id. (citation omitted). 

¶6 Based on the record before us, we conclude there is no error. 

The family court based its award on its finding that Mother’s annual income 

was $71,000, and that Father’s imputed annual income was $62,000. See
ONUIGBO v. ONUIGBO

Decision of the Court

3

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-320 app. § 5(E) (2011) (stating a court may impute 

income to a parent who is unemployed or working below his full earning 

potential if the parent’s earnings are reduced voluntarily and not for 

reasonable cause). Because Father failed to provide any transcripts, we 

must assume the record supports the family court’s findings. Fletcher v. 

Fletcher, 137 Ariz. 497, 498, 671 P.2d 938, 939 (App. 1983); see Ariz. R. Civ. 

App. P. 11(b)(1) (an appellant is required to include all relevant transcripts 

in the record on appeal); Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 217, ¶ 9, 245 P.3d 

898, 902 (App. 2010) (same). 

CONCLUSION

¶7 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.