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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Marriage of: 

MELANIE BLYTHE HOPE,

Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

JASON DOUGLAS HOPE,

Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0026 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2011-093940

The Honorable Joshua D. Rogers, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Melanie Blythe Hope, Los Lunas, NM

Petitioner/Appellant

FILED 3-19-2020
HOPE v. HOPE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Melanie Blythe Hope (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s 

modification of custody over three minor children. We affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Jason Douglas Hope (“Father”) divorced in 2011. 

The final decree of June 2011 recognized the parents would share joint 

custody, but their three minor children would reside with Mother as the 

primary caretaker. Just weeks later, Mother fled to Mexico with the 

children in violation of the decree. The court found Mother violated the 

decree and ordered her to return the children to Arizona. The court then 

modified the decree, ordering that joint custody would continue, but the 

children would live primarily with Father and Father would have sole legal 

decision-making authority. The court also ordered that “[b]oth parents 

shall be required to exercise any and all parenting time in Maricopa County, 

Arizona.” 

¶3 The children have since lived with Father in Maricopa 

County. Mother lived in Mexico from 2011 to 2017 and relocated to New 

Mexico in 2017. She has not seen the children since June 2013 and their last 

conversation was in August 2016. 

¶4 Father petitioned to modify the agreement in January 2018 

and suspend Mother’s parenting time until a “therapist recommends the 

children are ready” to reconstruct their relationship with Mother. Mother 

filed no response. She did, however, seek sanctions against Father for 

allegedly violating the decree. After a hearing and argument, the court

modified the decree to eliminate Mother’s parenting time, finding that 

Mother “would endanger” the children’s well-being with “continuing 

contact” because they “have not had any physical contact with Mother for 

five [] years.” Even so, the court appointed a therapeutic interventionist to 

formulate a “long-term plan” for Mother to reunify with the children. The 

court ordered that Mother bear the full expense of an interventionist
HOPE v. HOPE

Decision of the Court

3

because her “decisions to voluntarily waive her parenting time” for several 

years “necessitated the involvement of a therapeutic interventionist.”

¶5 Mother timely appeals and we have jurisdiction pursuant to

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-

120.21(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶6 Mother only argues the superior court erred by requiring her 

to pay for a therapeutic interventionist. Although Father filed no 

responsive brief, we consider the merits of this appeal in our discretion. See 

Nydam v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101, 101 (App. 1994). We review for an abuse 

of discretion. In re Marriage of Berger, 140 Ariz. 156, 167 (App. 1983).

¶7 Mother argues the costs of a therapeutic interventionist must 

be allocated based on the financial circumstances of the parties under A.R.S 

§ 25-406(B), but the therapeutic interventionist here was appointed under 

A.R.S. § 25-405(B), which has no such requirement. Nor does Arizona Rule 

of Family Law Procedure 95(a) limit the court’s discretion or inquiry to 

financial circumstances. The court held multiple hearings and determined

that Mother should cover the cost of a therapeutic interventionist because 

her long absence caused the expense. The record supports this decision and 

we find no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.