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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, 

Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

KIMBERLY JOHNSON, 

Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 20-0175 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2015-095306

The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Christopher Johnson, Gilbert

Petitioner/Appellant

Suzette Lorrey-Wiggs PC, Tempe

By Suzette Belle Lorrey-Wiggs 

Counsel for Respondent/Appellee

FILED 1-7-2021
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Christopher Johnson (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s 

post-decree modification of joint legal decision-making, parenting time and 

child support terms. Because no error is shown, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Kimberly Johnson (“Mother”) were married for 

several years and share a minor daughter (“Daughter”), born in 2004. They 

divorced in 2018. The superior court entered a consent decree to 

memorialize their dissolution agreement, which included joint legal 

decision-making authority, equal parenting time, a 5-2-2-5 parenting time 

schedule, and no child support.

¶3 Soon after, in September 2018, Father had a serious argument 

with Daughter about a school dance and his parenting time all but 

vanished. Around a year later, Father petitioned the superior court to (1) 

enforce the consent decree and order parenting time, and (2) enter a 

temporary order modifying parenting time to a week-on/week-off 

schedule. The court declined to modify parenting time temporarily, but 

encouraged communication between Father and Daughter while setting an 

evidentiary hearing over parenting time for late January 2020. Father 

followed with an amended petition. Although Mother did not formally 

respond to Father’s petition or amended petition, her prehearing statement 

covered the issues, including parenting time, legal decision-making and 

child support. 

¶4 After the evidentiary hearing, the court ordered Mother and 

Father to continue joint legal decision-making, but granted Mother final 

authority to decide if and when the parties cannot agree. The court also (1) 

directed Father to participate in counseling with Daughter, and (2) 

modified parenting time so Father had two hours per week, gradually 

increasing over a ten-month period and culminating in Father exercising 

parenting time on alternating weekends and holidays. And the court 
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

3

modified child support to reflect the new parenting time schedule. Father 

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

I. Parenting Time

¶5 Father argues the superior court abused its discretion and 

violated his due process rights when it decreased his parenting time sua 

sponte. Due process claims present legal issues for our de novo review. 

Mack v. Cruikshank, 196 Ariz. 541, 544, ¶ 6 (App. 1999). We review the 

parenting time modification for an abuse of discretion. Christopher K. v. 

Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297, 300, ¶ 15 (App. 2013).

¶6 The record indicates no error. Father contends the court 

violated his due process rights when it considered whether to reduce his 

parenting time because Father had not sought such relief. “Due process 

entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful 

time and in a meaningful manner.” Curtis v. Richardson, 212 Ariz. 308, 312, 

¶ 16 (App. 2006). At minimum, however, the record shows that Mother

raised the issue in her prehearing statement. Indeed, Mother asked the 

court to pause Father’s parenting time altogether until he attended

counseling. 

¶7 Beyond that, the court’s modified order reflected Father’s 

input, including his testimony that an immediate return to equal parenting 

time was not in Daughter’s best interest and instead suggesting he “slowly” 

be reintroduced through counseling. The superior court then clarified: “[I]f 

I understand you correctly, you’re asking for some kind of a gradual 

transition either through counseling, or through, like, limited periods of 

time—you see her a couple times a week for an hour, whatever, until 

they’re—and counseling so that it slowly gets built up.” Father answered 

“yes.” 

¶8 Father also argues the evidence did not support the court’s 

modification and contends he would have introduced more evidence if he 

known a reduction in parenting time was possible. But the promised 

evidence would only show communication between Father and Daughter 

after September 2018, which the superior court accepted as true. Father 

shows no prejudice. See Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 470, ¶ 26 (App. 2014)

(“Due process errors require reversal only if a party is thereby 

prejudiced.”).
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

4

¶9 Father also challenges the court’s exclusion of written 

communications, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Davis v. 

Davis, 246 Ariz. 63, 65, ¶ 6 (App. 2018) (evidentiary rulings are reviewed on 

appeal for an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice). Father has 

shown no abuse of discretion or prejudice. The communications in the

excluded exhibits predated the consent decree and thus held questionable 

relevance to the modification issues raised months after the entry of the 

decree.

1

II. Legal Decision-Making

¶10 Father contends the superior court erroneously modified the 

consent decree to recognize Mother as sole legal decision-maker. The court 

continued joint legal decision-making authority, however, only recognizing 

ultimate authority in Mother when the parties could not agree. And the 

Arizona Supreme Court has recognized that courts may “provide for joint 

legal decision-making [under A.R.S. § 25-401(2)] with one parent having 

final authority over certain matters.” Nicaise v. Sundaram, 245 Ariz. 566, 568, 

¶¶ 13, 16-17 (2019). 

¶11 Father also challenges the record basis for the court’s 

designation of Mother as the final voice. But Father does not account for 

evidence that Mother and Father had trouble communicating and making 

joint decisions, all of which supported the superior court’s finding that 

Mother and Father “are unable to communicate in any effective manner at 

all.” The record shows that Mother and Father could not even arrange 

routine dental appointments or share health insurance information. The 

court did not abuse its discretion by awarding final authority to Mother.

III. Child Support

¶12 Father argues the superior court erroneously awarded child 

support to Mother in violation of his due process rights, stressing that 

nobody asked for child support. We review for an abuse of discretion.

Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612, 615, ¶ 7 (App. 2015).

1 Father also argues the superior court should have held Mother in 

contempt, but the denial of a petition for contempt is not appealable, 

Danielson v. Evans, 201 Ariz. 401, 411, ¶ 35 (App. 2001). And because Father 

did not develop the argument with record or legal citations, we will not 

exercise our discretion hear the issue as a special action.
JOHNSON v. JOHNSON

Decision of the Court

5

¶13 Father was not deprived of due process. Arizona law 

empowered the superior court to revisit child support after and based on 

its modifications to parenting time. A.R.S. § 25-403.09(A); Heidbreder v. 

Heidbreder, 230 Ariz. 377, 379-80, ¶¶ 7, 9 (App. 2012). And Father had 

“adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard” on child 

support issues. Id. at 381, ¶ 13. Indeed, Father himself petitioned the court 

to modify the child support order so that Mother paid support to Father. 

Mother’s prehearing statement also identified child support as a contested 

issue and sought an increased amount of child support. Thus, Father had 

notice that modification of child support was at issue.

¶14 Father also argues the child support order hinges on

incomplete evidence. He contends Mother’s financial affidavit did not 

include her last three tax returns or show income from her second job and 

maintains he did not offer evidence of Mother’s income because he was not 

aware child support modification was at issue. But again, Father had 

adequate notice and never offered such evidence. Nor did Father argue at 

the hearing that Mother had undisclosed income from a second job. He 

cannot raise this argument for the first time on appeal. Bobrow v. Bobrow,

241 Ariz. 592, 597, ¶ 23 (App. 2017). The court did not abuse its discretion 

in modifying the child support order based on the new parenting time 

orders.

CONCLUSION

¶15 We affirm the superior court’s modification order. After 

considering the reasonableness of the parties’ positions and their financial 

resources, we exercise our discretion to award Mother her attorney fees and 

costs on appeal upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate 

Procedure 21. See A.R.S. §§ 25-324(A); 12-342(A).