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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DANIELLE GAGNON, Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

BRYAN C. GREENE, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0132 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2014-000813 

The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Danielle Gagnon, El Mirage

Petitioner/Appellee

Bryan Greene, Phoenix

Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

FILED 10-14-2021
GAGNON v. GREENE

Decision of the Court

2 

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Bryan C. Greene (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order 

modifying legal decision-making, parenting time and child support. For 

the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

upholding the decision.” Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9 (App. 2012). 

Father and Danielle Gagnon (“Mother”) divorced in 2014 and have three 

minor children. Since a modification order in 2018, the parties have shared

equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making with neither parent 

having final authority. 

¶3 In August 2020, Mother petitioned to modify the parenting 

plan and alleged Father’s anger issues were negatively impacting the 

children. At an evidentiary hearing, the court heard from Mother and

Father and considered a court-ordered interview of their 14-year-old 

daughter. The court found credible evidence that Father’s behavior had 

significantly strained his relationship with the children and endangered 

their mental health and wellbeing.

¶4 The court determined Father’s behavior was a material 

change in circumstance since the 2018 order and granted Mother final legal 

decision-making authority and reduced Father’s parenting time to every 

other weekend. The court also increased Father’s monthly child support 

payment to correspond to the new parenting plan. 

¶5 We have jurisdiction over Father’s timely appeal pursuant to

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) 

and 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION 

¶6 Father argues insufficient evidence supports the court’s 

finding that his behavior constituted a material change in circumstance and 

the resulting parenting time schedule, legal decision-making order and 

child support calculation were error. We review orders modifying 

parenting plans and child support for an abuse of discretion, but we will

not reweigh the evidence. See Backstrand v. Backstrand, 250 Ariz. 339, 343 ¶ 

14 (App. 2020) (legal decision-making and parenting time); Milinovich v. 

Womack, 236 Ariz. 612, 615, ¶ 7 (App. 2015) (child support). 
GAGNON v. GREENE

Decision of the Court

3 

¶7 Father has not provided a transcript of the proceedings, 

references to the evidence presented to the superior court or citations to any 

legal authority in support of his argument. See ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A)

(requiring appellant to provide the record necessary for appellate court to 

decide the issue); ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B) (“If the appellant will contend on 

appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the 

evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the 

record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that 

judgment, finding or conclusion.”); ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A) (requiring briefing 

to contain references to the record and citations to legal authority). To the 

extent that Father references the record, he asks us to reweigh the evidence, 

which we will not do. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our 

duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or 

redetermining the preponderance of the evidence.”).

¶8 Father’s brief included documents that he did not present to 

the superior court. We decline to consider evidence that is not in the record 

on appeal and issues raised for the first time on appeal. See ARCAP 11(a)(1) 

(defining the official record on appeal); Englert v. Carondelet Health Network, 

199 Ariz. 21, 26, ¶ 13 (App. 2000). 

¶9 Here, the court found credible evidence of changed 

circumstances affecting the children’s welfare, and after considering the 

factors in A.R.S. § 25-403(A), concluded the children’s best interests 

required modification. See Backstrand, 230 Ariz. at 339, ¶ 1 (describing twostep process for modifying based on changed circumstances). We cannot 

say the court abused its discretion. See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 

1995) (explaining appellate court presumes that missing portions of the 

record support the superior court’s decision).

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the reasons stated, we affirm.