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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

BENNY PERALTA, JR., Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

KUNISHA LADINA MURRAY, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0708 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2013-004324

The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Law Office of Carlos L. Estrada, Phoenix

By Carlos L. Estrada

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Kunisha Ladina Murray, Address Protected

Respondent/Appellant

FILED 7-12-2022
PERALTA v. MURRAY

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

C R U Z, Judge:

¶1 Kunisha Ladina Murray (“Mother”) appeals the superior 

court’s order affirming sole legal decision-making authority in favor of 

Benny Peralta, Jr. (“Father”) and enforcing Mother’s child-support 

obligation. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 The superior court dissolved the parties’ marriage in 2014 and 

ordered joint legal decision-making authority over their two minor 

children. The parties shifted between sole and joint legal decision-making 

authority over the years. Beginning in 2018, the superior court awarded 

Father sole legal decision-making authority. In 2018 and 2019, the court 

ordered Mother to participate in therapeutic counseling with the children 

and to undergo a psychological examination.

¶3 Following Father’s February 2020 petition to modify child 

support, the superior court ordered Mother to pay Father child support in 

the amount of $617 per month. Shortly thereafter, Father filed a petition to 

enforce the child support order. The court entered judgments on past-due 

child support and in favor of Father for attorneys’ fees related to the petition 

to enforce child support. Mother did not appeal either judgment.

¶4 In October 2020, Mother filed a petition to enforce parenting 

time and a petition to modify legal decision-making authority, requesting 

sole legal decision-making authority. Father filed a petition to modify 

parenting time, seeking supervised parenting time for Mother, and to 

enforce child support, alleging that Mother was still in arrears. After an 

evidentiary hearing on the three petitions, the superior court denied 

Mother’s petitions and affirmed its previous rulings granting sole legal 

decision-making authority to Father. The court also granted Father’s 

petition to enforce child support and entered a separate judgment for pastdue child support.
PERALTA v. MURRAY

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 We have jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal under 

Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(A)(2).1

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Decision-Making Authority and Parenting Time

¶6 Mother argues the superior court erred in awarding Father 

sole legal decision-making authority and custody.2 Mother makes no 

substantive argument on appeal other than to say the court awarded 

decision-making authority to the wrong parent and she was being 

“punished” for her failure to comply with court orders.

¶7 We review orders concerning legal decision-making and 

parenting time for an abuse of discretion. Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273, 

¶ 11 (App. 2013). The court abuses its discretion if the record lacks 

competent supporting evidence. Borg v. Borg, 3 Ariz. App. 274, 277 (1966).

¶8 Arizona’s public policy provides that “absent evidence to the 

contrary, it is in a child’s best interests . . . [t]o have substantial, frequent, 

meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents [and t]o have 

both parents participate in decision-making about the child.” A.R.S. § 25-

103(B). The court must determine if parenting time and decision-making 

authority is in the best interests of the child. A.R.S. § 25-403(A).

¶9 Here, the superior court performed a best-interests analysis in 

compliance with the statute and made detailed findings. The court found 

that it was in the children’s best interests that Father have sole legal 

decision-making authority. To maximize Mother’s parenting time, the 

court also ordered supervised parenting time to the extent it is in the 

children’s best interests. In support of its rulings, the court found that 

Mother had failed to participate in court-ordered therapeutic counseling,

had failed to undergo a court-ordered psychological evaluation, and had 

1 But see footnote 2.

2 We interpret Mother’s reference to “custody” to include a challenge 

to the supervised parenting-time order, following the legislature’s 2012 

replacement of the term “custody” with “legal decision-making and 

parenting time” in Title 25. See Baker v. Meyer, 237 Ariz. 112, 114, ¶ 7 n.2 

(App. 2015).
PERALTA v. MURRAY

Decision of the Court

4

engaged in concerning behavior, such as contacting the Department of 

Child Services with unsubstantiated allegations against Father. The court 

stated it had concerns about Mother’s mental health and that a 

psychological evaluation was still necessary before her parenting time 

could be expanded and she could be awarded any legal decision-making 

authority. Because the record supports these findings, we uphold the 

court’s ruling.

II. Child Support Enforcement

¶10 Mother also challenges the superior court’s ruling enforcing 

her child support obligation. We have no jurisdiction to address Mother’s 

argument challenging the October 2020 attorney-fee judgment, which she 

did not appeal. In re Marriage of Gray, 144 Ariz. 89, 90 (1985) (stating “the 

timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to appellate 

review”); ARCAP 9(a) (30-day deadline to file notice of appeal).

¶11 We accept the superior court’s factual findings unless they are 

clearly erroneous. Burnette v. Bender, 184 Ariz. 301, 304 (App. 1995), 

superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Myrick v. Maloney, 235 

Ariz. 491, 494, ¶ 8 (App. 2014).

¶12 Mother argues that child support is not her “responsibility”

and she has “[her] own bills and family to provide for.” First, we note that

Mother has an obligation to support her children by paying child support. 

See A.R.S. § 25-501(A) (every person has a duty to provide support for that 

person’s children); A.R.S. § 25-501(C) (all other financial obligations are 

secondary to the obligation to pay child support). Regardless, Mother’s 

argument is inapposite because Mother appeals the superior court’s ruling 

enforcing child support, not the actual award of child support. Thus, we 

address enforcement only. The right to collect child support payments

vests when the payments are due. Jarvis v. Jarvis, 27 Ariz. App. 266, 267 

(1976). Payments not made by the due date create a judgment that 

conclusively establishes the debtor-parent’s obligations. Id. at 268.

¶13 In its ruling granting Father’s petition for enforcement of 

child support, the court noted that (1) Father testified that Mother has not 

made any child support payments except for a $500 purge payment; (2) 

Father testified in support of his pretrial statement that the total amount of 

past due child support for the period March 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021 is 

$9,989; and (3) Mother testified that she paid a $500 purge payment in 

October 2020 and has not made any other child support payments since 

March 2020. The court then issued a separate judgment in the amount of 
PERALTA v. MURRAY

Decision of the Court

5

$9,989 for past due child support. Although Mother did not provide a 

transcript on appeal, we presume the missing transcript supports the 

superior court’s ruling. Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). Even 

without the transcript, however, the record independently supports the 

court’s ruling. Therefore, the court did not err in enforcing child support.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court’s 

order. We award costs to Father upon compliance with ARCAP 21.