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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ABBY P. PRESSLY, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

AARON C. LOVE, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 15-0632 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County

No. P1300DO20090502

The Honorable Patricia A. Trebesch, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Carman Law Firm, Prescott

By Krista M. Carman

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Jeffrey M. Zurbriggen PC, Phoenix

By Jeffrey M. Zurbriggen

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
PRESSLY v. LOVE

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Aaron C. Love (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s 

order regarding parenting time and child support. For the following 

reasons, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Abby P. Pressly (“Mother”) were married for six 

years and have three minor children together. Their marriage was 

dissolved in 2010. According to the amended consent decree, Father and 

Mother had “joint legal and joint physical custody” of the children and 

nearly equal parenting time. Father agreed to pay child support of $2500 

per month and spousal maintenance for a period of four years. 

¶3 More than one year after entry of the amended decree, Father 

filed a petition for modification of child support citing a decline in his 

income. Thereafter, Mother filed an emergency petition to modify child 

custody, parenting time and legal decision-making, as well as a request for 

random drug and alcohol testing, alleging that Father was displaying

“irrational, erratic and unpredictable behaviors.” Mother also filed a 

motion for contempt against Father alleging his failure to pay child support, 

spousal maintenance, and miscellaneous expenses. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the superior court entered temporary orders requiring 

Father to submit to weekly drug testing and directing supervision of his 

parenting time. 

¶4 After a failed attempt at settlement, the superior court held a 

two-day trial and, thereafter, entered a detailed order (1) awarding joint 

legal decision-making, (2) granting Father limited supervised parenting 

time, (3) finding Father in contempt of court for failure to pay child support 

and spousal maintenance, and (4) granting Mother an award of attorneys’ 

fees. Father appealed. 
PRESSLY v. LOVE

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

I. Parenting Time

¶5 Father first challenges the superior court’s ruling regarding

parenting time. He argues the court “incorrectly made the § 25-403 

findings.” We review the court’s decision regarding parenting time for an 

abuse of discretion. See Hart v. Hart, 220 Ariz. 183, 185, ¶ 8 (App. 2009).

¶6 The superior court awarded Father and Mother joint legal 

decision-making and granted Father supervised parenting time twice a

month contingent upon his submission to full panel drug testing.1 The 

court’s order further provided that Father’s parenting time would increase 

over time and supervision would end as long as there were “no concerns 

during parenting time.” 

¶7 In a contested parenting time case, the court must comply 

with the requirement set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) 

section 25-403 to “make specific findings on the record about all relevant 

factors and the reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the 

child.” A.R.S. § 25-403(B).

2 A court’s failure to make these findings 

constitutes an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 

526, ¶ 5 (App. 2002). 

¶8 Here, the superior court’s order thoroughly addressed each of 

the relevant factors set forth in § 25-403. Accordingly, the court’s decision 

complied with A.R.S. § 25-403. 

¶9 Father also argues the superior court “erred when it ordered 

[Father’s] parenting time to be very restricted, contrary to Arizona law.” 

In making this argument, Father relies on A.R.S. § 25-411(J), which 

provides:

The court may modify an order granting or denying 

parenting time rights whenever modification would serve the 

best interest of the child, but the court shall not restrict a 

parent’s parenting time rights unless it finds that the 

 

1 The record reflects that Father failed to comply with prior court 

orders for drug testing. 

2 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite the current 

version of a statute unless otherwise stated.
PRESSLY v. LOVE

Decision of the Court

4

parenting time would endanger seriously the child’s 

physical, mental, moral or emotional health.

A.R.S. § 25-411(J) (emphasis added). 

¶10 Pursuant to § 25-411(J), the superior court was required to

determine that Father’s parenting time would endanger the children before 

restricting his parenting time.3 We review whether the evidence in the 

record supports the court’s determination. See Hart, 220 Ariz. at 188, ¶ 19

(analyzing § 25-411(D), now recodified as § 25-411(J)). Additionally, in 

reviewing a decision after a bench trial, “we view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision.” Double AA Builders, 

Ltd. v. Grand State Constr. L.L.C., 210 Ariz. 503, 506, ¶ 9 (App. 2005).

¶11 In explaining its decision to restrict Father’s parenting time, 

the court referenced Father’s 2013 car accident and his resulting arrest. 

Following the accident, Father pled guilty to two counts of vehicular 

endangerment and one count of reckless driving. Although the charges of 

driving under the influence were later dropped, the police reports describe

behaviors and symptoms indicative of drug use. The reports also reflect 

that multiple prescription medications were found in Father’s car. 

¶12 In support of its decision, the superior court also referenced

an assessment of Father performed by a medical doctor, who is a fellow of 

the American Society of Addiction Medicine. The assessment was 

completed at the request of the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners in 

Medicine and Surgery. The doctor noted that Father, who himself is an 

emergency room physician, (1) admitted to misusing Adderall and (2) 

acknowledged using “curbside” prescriptions obtained from his physician

colleagues. The doctor concluded that Father “requires a comprehensive 

evaluation at a recognized and board approved evaluation center to 

determine if there is an underlying substance use disorder, psychiatric 

disorder and/or medical condition that may be impairing his ability to 

function effectively.” 

 

3 This statute does not require written findings on the record. See Hart, 

220 Ariz. at 187, ¶¶ 15-16 (holding there is no requirement that the court’s 

findings be “reduced to writing or stated on the record”).
PRESSLY v. LOVE

Decision of the Court

5

¶13 The superior court summarized this assessment and other 

evidence supporting its decision to restrict Father’s parenting time as 

follows:

There are many red flags raised by the contents of Father’s 

evaluations. Father’s recent and progressively declining 

behavior including the DUI, criminal charges, domestic 

violence incident, Medical Board investigation, license 

suspension/unemployment and consequential financial 

issues are concerning given they constitute stressors that 

challenge and, at times, impair Father’s judgment and may 

place the children at risk without monitoring.

¶14 Based on this evidence, the court restricted Father’s parenting 

time, devising a parenting plan that was “designed to ensure the safety of 

the children by encouraging Father’ sobriety.” Based on the record, we find

no abuse of discretion, and affirm the court’s parenting plan. 

II. Settlement Conference

¶15 Father next argues the superior court “erred when it was 

supposed to hold an evidentiary hearing in December 2014” but instead 

held a settlement conference. The order entered the day of the hearing

states: 

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties[,] the Court converted 

the Trial scheduled for December 16, 2014 into a Settlement 

Conference. The Court has been advised the parties[] reached 

[an] agreement on all issues.

The order further directs the parties to submit a stipulated agreement 

within ten days. The parties failed to do so. 

¶16 Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 67 permits a 

judge or commissioner presiding over an action to conduct a settlement 

conference “[u]pon agreement of the parties.” Ariz. R. Fam. L.P. 67(D). 

Here, the record indicates the parties stipulated to a settlement conference 

before the judge assigned to their case.4 There is no evidence in the record 

 

4 Relying on this court’s decision in In re Jesse M., 217 Ariz. 74 (App. 

2007), Father argues that “a judge does not have the discretion to disregard 

the statutory requirement for a verbatim record.” That case, however,

involved the application of A.R.S. § 36–539(E), which requires a verbatim 
PRESSLY v. LOVE

Decision of the Court

6

that Father objected to the settlement conference; indeed, the record reflects 

his acquiescence. Accordingly, we find no error.5

III. Dr. Cady’s Testimony

¶17 Father also argues the superior court erred in permitting Dr. 

Daniel Cady to testify. Father asserts that Dr. Cady was not qualified to 

testify as an expert pursuant to Arizona Rule of Evidence 702. 

¶18 A court has broad discretion in determining whether a 

witness is qualified to testify as an expert. State v. Romero, 239 Ariz. 6, 9, 

¶ 11 (2016). We review the superior court’s decision to admit Dr. Cady’s 

expert testimony for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 15. 

¶19 Mother disclosed Dr. Cady as an expert witness pursuant to 

Rule 49(H). Her disclosure indicated that Dr. Cady would provide “his 

professional opinions regarding adult onset and/or diagnosis, symptoms 

and treatment of adult Attention Deficit Disorder and Adult Attention 

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.” 

¶20 Dr. Cady is a licensed psychologist with experience 

performing psychological evaluations and knowledge regarding attention 

deficit disorder (“ADD”) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 

(“ADHD”). Our review of Dr. Cady’s credentials and testimony confirms

that he had the experience, training, and education to offer an opinion on 

the subject of adult onset ADD and ADHD.

6 The superior court did not 

abuse its discretion in permitting him to testify.

 

record for involuntary commitment proceedings. See id. at 81, ¶ 37. There 

is no such statutory requirement applicable here.

5 Father also argues that Rule 67 “requires that a report be produced 

with the resolved and unresolved issues, and then provided to the court.” 

The rule, however, requires a report only if the parties do not reach an 

agreement or reach only a partial agreement. See Ariz. R. Fam. L.P. 67(D)(7). 

Here, the record reflects the parties reached an agreement “on all issues”;

therefore, no report was required. 

6 Father’s reliance on Rodriguez v. Jackson, 118 Ariz. 13 (App. 1977) for 

the proposition that “medical testimony means testimony by physicians” is 

misplaced. Id. at 17. Rodriguez stands for the proposition that in a medical 

malpractice case, the standard of care for a physician must be established 

by an expert physician. 
PRESSLY v. LOVE

Decision of the Court

7

IV. Abbie Roses’ Testimony

¶21 Father last argues the superior court erred by allowing Abbie 

Roses to testify because “the Court stated on the record that it had a 

relationship with the witness, [b]ut nowhere on the record did any 

advisement or waiver of such conflict occur.” 

¶22 At trial, Mother called Abbie Roses, a realtor who attempted 

a short sale of Father’s home. Prior to her testimony, the superior court

stated: “I will note for the record that I have already disclosed [to] the 

parties my familiarity” with Ms. Roses. Father did not object to Ms. Roses’ 

testimony.

¶23 “It is well established that failure to object to evidence, 

testimony or arguments waives these matters on appeal.” State v. Thomas, 

130 Ariz. 432, 435 (1981). Father failed to object to Ms. Roses’ testimony at 

the time of trial. Therefore, he has waived this issue on appeal.

CONCLUSION

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

order. Mother requests attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-

324. In the exercise of our discretion, we award Mother reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal subject to her compliance with Arizona 

Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.