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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KELSEY ANN PRUETT, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA RYAN BELETZ, Respondent/Appellee.

ROBERT BELETZ, Intervenor/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 16-0375 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2011-006520

The Honorable Michael J. Herrod, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Robert Beletz, Cobb, CA

Intervenor/Appellant in Propria Persona

Holly L. Marshall, Phoenix

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
PRUETT et al. v. BELETZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge James P. Beene joined.

D O W N I E, Judge:

¶1 Robert Beletz (“Grandfather”) appeals the superior court’s 

order denying his motion to reinstate grandparent visitation rights. For 

the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2011, Grandfather entered into a written agreement with 

Kelsey Ann Pruett (“Mother”) and Joshua Ryan Beletz (“Father”) for 

visitation with Granddaughter.1 In February 2014, Mother petitioned to 

suspend Grandfather’s visitation, citing numerous concerns, including 

erratic and threatening behavior, arrests, and drug usage. The superior 

court found that an emergency existed and suspended Grandfather’s 

visitation “until further order of the Court.” 

¶3 On April 7, 2014, the grandparents, through counsel, filed a

“Motion to Withdraw as Intervenors.” The motion advised that they had 

initially sought visitation because Father was in prison. Father had since 

been released, and the grandparents asked that they “be removed as 

Intervenors in the case and their separate legal rights as Grandparents be 

terminated.” The superior court thereafter dismissed the underlying 

grandparent visitation petition. 

¶4 On April 7, 2016, Grandfather filed a motion seeking to 

reestablish visitation. The superior court denied that motion, concluding 

it did not “meet the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes section 

25-409 for a grandparent visitation petition.” Grandfather’s timely appeal 

followed. 

 

1 The child’s grandmother was also awarded visitation, but she is not 

a party to this appeal.
PRUETT et al. v. BELETZ

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION

¶5 We review the superior court’s ruling for an abuse of 

discretion. See Graville v. Dodge, 195 Ariz. 119, 128, ¶ 38 (App. 1999). 

Grandparents seeking visitation must comply with statutory 

requirements, including filing a petition that is “verified or supported by 

affidavit” and that includes “detailed facts supporting the petitioner’s 

claim.” A.R.S. § 25-409(D). Notice to the child’s parents is also 

mandated.

2 A.R.S. § 25-409(D)(1). 

¶6 The superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Grandfather’s motion. The filing was neither verified nor supported by an 

affidavit, and it lacked “detailed facts” demonstrating a basis for 

grandparent visitation. The one-page motion stated: 

In February 2014 my daughter was removed from my wife’s 

care. I had not seen my daughter since July 2013 and she 

was removed by CPS in February 2014. My daughter being 

removed by/from CPS. A motion was brought before this 

court so I was not allowed to see [Grandaughter] because 

my disposition at that time wasn’t good for her to be 

exposed to. 

I have fulfilled all requirements by Dept of Child Safety 

including drug testing (no failed tests), domestic violence 

class. (Never have been convicted of any) and completed 

substance abuse rehabilitation. I would like my rights 

reinstated to spend time with my granddaughter. 

¶7 On appeal, Grandfather does not articulate the legal issues 

presented for our review or cite any legal authority. It is not this Court’s 

responsibility to develop a party’s argument. Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van 

Duyne, 156 Ariz. 140, 143 (App. 1987). A party must present significant 

arguments, set forth his or her position on the issues raised, and include 

citations to relevant authorities, statutes, and portions of the record. See

ARCAP 13(a)(6), (b)(1); see also Cullum v. Cullum, 215 Ariz. 352, 355 n.5, 

¶ 14 (App. 2007) (Appellate courts “will not consider argument[] posited 

without authority.”); Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270, ¶ 12 (App. 

1999) (holding a pro se litigant to the same standard as an attorney). 

 

2 Grandfather’s petition reflects only that he mailed a copy to 

Mother’s attorney.
PRUETT et al. v. BELETZ

Decision of the Court

4

Grandfather also fails to address the deficiencies in his motion that led to 

its denial. Under these circumstances, no basis exists for setting aside the 

superior court’s order. 

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm the judgment of the superior court. Mother seeks 

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. 

§ 25-324(B)(2). In the exercise of our discretion, we will award a 

reasonable sum of fees because Grandfather’s appeal is not “based on 

law.” Mother is also entitled to recover her taxable costs. Both awards are 

contingent on compliance with ARCAP 21.