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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER SMITH, Petitioner/Appellant, 

v.

NOEMI ALVRADO SMITH, Respondent/Appellee. 

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0308 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2020-006035 

The Honorable Max Covil, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Christopher Smith, Phoenix

Petitioner/Appellant 

Noemi Alvrado Smith, Phoenix

Respondent/Appellee

FILED 12-9-2021
SMITH v. SMITH

Decision of the Court

2 

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.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Smith (“Father”) appeals the family court’s 

decree of dissolution. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father provides no statement of the case or fact section to 

assist us; accordingly, we rely on our review of the record for our recitation 

of the facts. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Arrington, 192 Ariz. 255, 257 

n.1 (App. 1998). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the court’s rulings. In re Marriage of Yuro, 192 Ariz. 568, 570, ¶ 3 

(App. 1998). 

¶3 Father and Noemi Alvarado Smith n/k/a Noemi Guadalupe 

Alvarado (“Mother”) married in 2009 and have four minor children. The 

parties separated when Mother moved in August 2020, leaving the children 

with Father. In October 2020, Father filed a petition to dissolve the

marriage. 

¶4 In March 2021, the court held a one-day trial on Father’s 

petition, took the matter under advisement, and issued a decree of 

dissolution in April 2021. The court ordered that the parties have equal 

parenting time and joint legal decision-making, with Father having final 

decision-making authority. The court also ordered that Mother pay $8.00 

in monthly child support to Father and did not award spousal maintenance 

to either party. The court equally distributed the parties’ community 

property and debts.

¶5 We have jurisdiction over Father’s timely appeal of the decree

under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

I. Appellate Briefing
SMITH v. SMITH

Decision of the Court

3 

¶6 Although this court has discretion to consider Mother’s 

failure to file an answering brief as conceding error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2);

Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 437 (App. 1982), we decline to do so,

given that the best interests of the children are involved, see In re Marriage 

of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525, ¶ 2 (App. 2002); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 4 Ariz. App. 

83, 85 (1966). 

¶7 Moreover, Father’s opening brief does not comply with 

Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 13 in almost any respect. See

ARCAP 13(a). Although we could summarily reject Father’s appeal on that 

basis, see Clemens v. Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966); Lederman v. Phelps Dodge 

Corp., 19 Ariz. App. 107, 108 (1973), we decline to do so and instead address 

the merits of the arguments we can identify presented in Father’s appeal.

II. The Merits

¶8 Father argues he presented evidence that Mother (1) has acted 

abusively toward him, (2) lacks a stable living environment, and (3) neglects 

the children. He concludes the family court failed to fully consider or 

properly weigh the evidence he introduced or sought to introduce at trial. 

He therefore disagrees with the court’s order of joint legal decision-making

and the resulting amount of child support. He also argues the court abused 

its discretion in ordering that the parties download and use the “Our 

Family Wizard” application, which is a digital tool that facilitates coparenting and related communications. 

¶9 Father has not included a transcript of the dissolution trial or 

any exhibits he may have sought to introduce at trial. When an appellant 

fails to include a transcript of the proceedings, we assume the missing 

portions of the record support the court’s findings and ruling. Baker v. 

Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995); accord Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, 

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005). Applying that rule here, Father has shown no error.

¶10 To the extent Father asks that we reweigh the evidence, we 

may not do so on appeal, see Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), 

and realistically cannot do so without a transcript, see Romero v. Sw. 

Ambulance & Rural/Metro Corp., 211 Ariz. 200, 203, ¶ 4 (App. 2005) (holding 

that unsupported arguments without the relevant transcripts are 

insufficient for this court to meaningfully review a trial court’s rulings or 

overcome the presumption that those rulings are supported by the record). 

Under the record as presented, he has shown no error in the decree.

¶11 Father also argues Mother is “not following court orders” and 

other obligations since the divorce and suggests that he is at odds with 
SMITH v. SMITH

Decision of the Court

4 

Mother’s current boyfriend. Father has not filed a petition to enforce or 

modify the family court’s previous orders, however, much less appealed 

from the denial of such a petition. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider those arguments. See Lee v. Lee, 133 Ariz. 118, 124 (App. 1982). 

¶12 Because Father is not the prevailing party and Mother has not 

filed an answering brief, we award no taxable costs.

CONCLUSION 

¶13 We affirm the family court’s decree of dissolution.