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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

SCOTT ROBERT CASH, Petitioner/Appellant, 

 v. 

JENNIFER NICOLE CASH, Respondent/Appellee. 

No. 1 CA-CV 20-0182 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2019-007313 

The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Scott Robert Cash, Mesa

Petitioner/Appellant 

Bishop Law Office PC, Phoenix

By Tawnia R. Wienke, Daniel P. Beeks

Counsel for Respondent/Appellee

FILED 12-15-2020
CASH v. CASH

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

B A I L E Y, Judge:

¶1 Scott Cash (“Father”) appeals from the decree of dissolution 

permitting his children to relocate to Kansas and the resulting long-distance 

parenting plan. Because Father has shown no error, we affirm. 

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Jennifer Cash (“Mother”) were married for eight 

years and have two minor children, J.C., born in March 2014, and A.C., born 

in September 2015. Mother and Father met and were married in Kansas 

and lived there before moving to Arizona in 2017. 

¶3 In early September 2019, after an argument over child 

discipline, Mother told Father she would be moving back to Kansas with 

the children. Father did not object when Mother rented a U-Haul, packed 

the children’s toys and clothing and much of the parties’ furniture and left 

without saying when they would return. 

¶4 After Mother and the children had been gone for a few weeks, 

Father filed a petition for dissolution. 

¶5 Over Father’s objection, the court entered temporary orders 

awarding joint legal decision-making, and designating Mother as the 

children’s primary residential parent in Kansas, and granting Father one 

week of parenting time per month.

¶6 At the dissolution trial in January 2020, both parents sought 

to be the children’s primary residential parent. In arguing that the children 

should return to Arizona, Father testified J.C. does not have the same access 

to a speech pathologist in Kansas as he did in Arizona. He also testified 

J.C.’s grades were “below grade level” in many areas. As for A.C., Father 

1 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the family 

court’s findings . . . .” Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 150, 155, ¶ 17 (App. 2015). 
CASH v. CASH

Decision of the Court

3 

testified that on the one occasion that he dropped her off at her daycare in 

Kansas, she seemed withdrawn and sad. He also testified that his 

relationship with both children is now strained.

¶7 Mother testified that she had always been the children’s 

primary caregiver. She testified that Father became easily frustrated when 

caring for the children and had told her that he could not handle the 

children for more than six hours at a time. With respect to J.C.’s 

performance at school, Mother stated that he was below grade level and 

had behavioral issues in Arizona before the move. She added that J.C. was 

meeting his goals in his special education classes, and that he had continued 

his speech therapy over Skype. As to A.C., Mother indicated that she smiles 

and seems happy when being picked up from daycare. 

¶8 Mother and maternal grandmother both testified that on 

several occasions, they saw Father spank the children forcefully. Father 

admitted he spanked the children, but denied he left red marks or bruises.

¶9 The court awarded joint legal decision-making and 

designated Mother as the children’s primary residential parent. The court 

ordered a long-distance parenting plan with a provision that Father can 

exercise additional parenting time in Kansas upon seven days’ notice.

¶10 We have jurisdiction over Father’s timely appeal pursuant to 

Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION

¶11 “We review parenting time orders for an abuse of discretion.” 

Woyton v. Ward, 247 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 5 (App. 2019). “[T]he family court is 

in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and resolve 

conflicting evidence, and appellate courts generally defer to the findings of 

the family court.” Vincent, 238 Ariz. at 155, ¶ 18. We review questions of 

statutory interpretation de novo. Gonzalez-Gunter v. Gunter, 249 Ariz. 489, 

491, ¶ 9 (App. 2020). 

¶12 Father argues the court’s findings do not adequately support 

the court’s decision to allow the children to relocate to Kansas and make 

Mother the primary residential parent. “When entering a decree of 

dissolution involving minor children, the ‘court shall determine . . . 

parenting time . . . in accordance with the best interest of the child.’” 

Woyton, 247 Ariz. at 531, ¶ 6 (quoting A.R.S. § 25-403(A)). In determining 

whether to allow a parent to relocate with the parties’ children, the court 
CASH v. CASH

Decision of the Court

4 

must consider all the relevant factors set forth in A.R.S. § 25-408(I), 

including an assessment of the best interests of the children under § 25-

403(A). 

¶13 Here, the court made findings and considered all the relevant 

factors under both A.R.S. §§ 25-403(A) and -408(I). Father does not 

challenge any specific findings made pursuant to either section, but rather 

challenges the court’s weighing of the children’s best interests against his 

right to continue to have a meaningful relationship with them. The court, 

however, appropriately considered Father’s interest in a meaningful 

relationship when it evaluated whether relocating to Kansas was in the 

children’s best interests. The court noted that Father had implicitly agreed 

to allow Mother to move there with the children. The court also considered 

that although the temporary order allowed Father one week of parenting 

time per month, he had exercised only two days-long visits with the 

children in four months. The court concluded that Father had a realistic 

opportunity for parenting time with the children even if they remained in 

Kansas. The order also allows Father to exercise additional parenting time 

in Kansas, if he provides seven days’ notice to Mother.

¶14 Father argues the court’s ruling did not consider whether 

relocation was in the best interest of the children and Father. But the court

properly focused on the children, rather than on Father. See A.R.S. § 25-

403(A) (“The court shall determine . . . parenting time . . . in accordance with 

the best interests of the child.” (emphasis added)); A.R.S. § 25-408(G) 

(requiring the parent seeking to relocate to prove relocation is in the child’s 

best interests). To the extent Father argues the court improperly weighed 

certain factors, we do not reweigh evidence on appeal. Jesus M. v. Ariz. 

Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 203 Ariz. 278, 282, ¶ 12 (App. 2002). Accordingly, Father 

has not shown the court abused its discretion in finding relocation was in 

the children’s best interests. 

¶15 Father also argues the order improperly restricted his 

parenting time because Arizona statutes mandate substantial and frequent 

parenting time and the court did not find Father’s parenting time would 

endanger the children pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-411(J). 

¶16 Generally, near-equal parenting time is presumed to be in the 

child’s best interests. Woyton, 247 Ariz. at 531, ¶ 6. Nonetheless, equal 

parenting time may not always be feasible, particularly when the parties 

live in different states. Id. Although A.R.S. § 25-103 “provides that as a 

matter of public policy, absent evidence to the contrary, ‘it is in the child’s 

best interest . . . [t]o have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing 
CASH v. CASH

Decision of the Court

5 

parenting time with both parents,’” “[t]hat directive does not require equal 

parenting time.” Gonzalez-Gunter, 249 Ariz. at 492, ¶ 12 (quoting A.R.S. 

§ 25-103(B)(1)). 

¶17 Under Gonzalez-Gunter, “the limitation in § 25-411(J) on the 

court’s power to ‘restrict . . . parenting time rights’ does not apply to a 

diminution in parenting time.” Id. at ¶ 13. Section 25-411(J) applies to the 

court’s ability to place conditions on how a parent exercises his or her 

“parenting time rights.” Id. (first emphasis added). Here, the court did not 

place any restrictions on how Father could exercise his parenting time. 

Instead, it awarded Father ten weeks of parenting time in Arizona, plus any 

additional time Father chooses to exercise in Kansas. Accordingly, the court 

did not abuse its discretion in awarding Father less than equal parenting 

time. 

CONCLUSION

¶18 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.