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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SONJA ANN BERRY

, P etitioner /Appell ee ,

v.

TERRY B. DECKER

, Respondent/Appellant

.

No. CA

- CV 14

- 0368 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. DR1999

- 014781

The Honorable James T. Blomo

, Judge

APPEAL DISMISSED

COUNSEL

Terry B. Decker

, Mesa Respondent

/Appellant

Sonja Berry, Gilbert Petitioner/AppelleeBERRY v. DECKER

Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.

P O R T L E Y

, Judge:

¶1 Terry Decker (“Father”) appeals the family court’s order denying his motion to correct the factual findings of a 2011 minute entry. For the following reasons

, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Sonja Ann Berry (“Mother”) divorced in 2001

. Mother was awarded sole custody of their two children

. In 2009

, the court appointed a therapeutic interventionist (“TI”) and gave the TI the authority

to arrange psychological examinations for the children

. 1

¶3 T he TI set up medical testing for the younger child at the

Melmed Center (“the Center”) in 2011

. M other objected to testing at the

Center and, i nstead , arranged for the child to be tested by a child psychologist. The TI sent a report to the court, and the court issued a minute entry stating the child shall attend the testing sessions scheduled by

the TI

. In its findings, the court stated that be fore the TI had made any testing arrangements, the TI “sought to determine if testing had been arranged by the [parents] ” and “learned that it had not.” Neither parent objected to the ruling or its findings.

¶4 Three years later, Father filed a “motion to correct” the 2011 minute entry

, alleging he h ad indeed scheduled the testing by “bifurcating the various parts of the Melmed tests in lieu of doing all test phases without interruption

. ” Father argued the minute entry “could reflect poorly and incorrectly upon [ him ] in any future reference [s] ” to the minute entry

. The

court denied the motion , stating Father “waited almost three years” to file

the motion

. Father appealed the court’s denial of his motion to correct

.

1 The c ourt reappointed the TI in 2010.BERRY v. DECKER

Decision of the Court

3 DISCUSSION

¶5 We ha ve an independent duty to determine if we ha ve jurisdiction over an appeal. Musa v. Adrian , 130 Ariz. 311, 312, 636 P.2d 89, 90 (1981). Unless a constitutional or statutory provision makes a judgment

or order appealable, we “ do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the question raised on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted). Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) s ection 12

- 2101(A)(2) allows appeals from “any special

order made after final judgment.” 2 However, “ n ot every order following a final judg ment is appealable.” Arvizu v. Fernandez , 183 Ariz. 224, 226, 902 P.2d 830, 832 (App. 1995) (citation omitted).

¶6 To be appealable, a post

- judgment order must meet two requirements. Williams v. Williams, 228 Ariz. 160, 164, ¶ 11, 264 P.3d 870, 874 (App. 2 011). First, the order must raise different issues from those that

would arise in an appeal from the underlying judgment

. Id. And the order must either affect the judgment or relate to it by enforcing or staying its

execution. Arvizu , 183 Ariz. a t 833, 902 P.2d at 227.

¶7 Even if we assume for argument the 2011 minute entry was a final judgment, 3 the denial of Father’s motion to correct the record in 2014 is not appealable. First, Father did not challenge the findings or substance of the 2011 ruling, a nd now seeks to challenge the findings. His appeal of the 2014 ruling, a s a result, does not raise any issue that could not have been raised in an appeal from the 2011 order

. See Engel v. Landman , 221 Ariz. 504, 510, ¶ 20, 212 P.3d 842, 848 (App. 2009).

¶8 Moreover, the 2014 ruling does not affect the decree that gave rise to the 2011 ruling. Arvizu , 183 Ariz. at 227, 902 P.2d at 833 (“ [A] postjudgment order that does not affect the judgment or relate to its enforcement [is] not appealable

. ” (alteration i n original) (quoting Lakin v.

Watkins Associated Indus. , 863 P.2d 179, 183 ( Cal. 1995) ) )

. In fact, the issue giving rise to the 2011 ruling is now moot ; the child was tested in 2011 and

the TI was relieved of her duties in 2013. As a result, the mootness doctrine prevents us from deciding an issue that is “no longer in existence because of changes in the factual circumstances.” Flores v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co

., 218 Ariz. 52, 57, ¶ 24, 178 P.3d 1176, 1181 (App. 2008) (internal c itation and

2 We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted.

3 The minute entry was not signed and “ [ a ] n unsigned minute entry is not a final judgment.” Sysco Ariz., Inc. v. Hoskins , 235 Ariz. 164, 166, ¶ 10, 330 P.3d 354, 356 (App. 2014); see A riz. R. Fam. Law P. 81 (“All judgments shall be in writing and signed by a judge . . .”).BERRY v. DECKER

Decision of the Court

4 quotation marks omitted). Consequently, the 2014 ruling does not meet the requirements to be an appealable post

- judgment order.

COSTS

¶9 Father seeks costs on appeal. Because he did not prevail, his request is denied. See A.R.S. § 12

- 341.

CONCL USION

¶10 Because the denial of Father ’s motion to correct the minute entry is a non

- appealable post

- judgment order, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.