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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EDITH ACEVES NAVARRO, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

RICARDO SALINAS GARCIA, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 17-0273 FC

FILED 2-6-2018

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400DO201601427

The Honorable Stephen J. Rouff, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Bleich Law Office, PC, Yuma

By Lisa W. Bleich

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kenton D. Jones joined.
NAVARRO v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

2

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Appellant Ricardo Salinas Garcia ("Father") appeals from the 

superior court's order establishing child support and judgment as to child 

support arrears. Finding the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction 

to establish child support, we affirm.1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Edith Aceves Navarro ("Mother") had a son 

together in 1999. Mother and her son live in San Luis, Mexico, and Father 

lives in Arizona. In early 2016, Mother attempted to establish child support 

through the Department of Economic Security, but the case was closed

when Father started making payments to Mother in Mexico.

¶3 On October 25, 2016, Mother filed a petition in superior court 

to establish child support pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") 

section 25-503. A hearing was held on January 5, 2017, at which both parties 

were pro per litigants.

2 During the hearing, Father attempted to introduce

a document supporting his claim that child support was already established 

in Mexico. The document was not admitted because Father failed to follow 

disclosure procedures; however, Father testified that the document was 

from a court in Mexico requiring him to pay 3,000 pesos of child support 

per month to Mother. Mother testified that she opened a child support case 

in Arizona in February 2016 and Father's payments started in March 2016.

She also claimed Father had no order from a Mexico court, but made the 

payments in order to have the Arizona child support case closed. The 

superior court ordered Father to pay monthly child support and entered a 

judgment for three years child support arrears.

¶4 On January 27, 2017, Father, with the assistance of an 

attorney, moved for relief from the order, arguing that the court's order was 

a mistake because the court did not receive proper evidence of the Mexican 

child support order and Mother provided the court with false information 

and failed to disclose relevant information. Father attached a letter in 

 

1 Mother did not file an answering brief. While we could regard this failure 

as a confession of error, we are not required to do so. In the exercise of our 

discretion, we address the substance of Father's appeal. Cardoso v. Soldo, 

230 Ariz. 614, 616 n.1, ¶ 4 (App. 2012).

2 Mother attended the hearing telephonically because she lived in Mexico 

and was not legally allowed into the United States.
NAVARRO v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

3

Spanish from an attorney in Mexico (along with what appears to be an 

English translation of that letter) as support for his claim that there was a 

child support order from a court in Mexico. On March 8, 2017, the superior 

court denied the motion, finding that (1) "the court was not bound to give 

full faith and credit to an undocumented, vague and unproven order or 

judgment from a foreign country"; (2) the letters provided by Father were

not adequate to prove the existence of a foreign order; and (3) the false 

information in Mother's petition was caused by "language problems" and 

corrected at the hearing. Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Father's sole claim on appeal is that a Mexico court previously 

established a child support order as to his son, and, therefore, A.R.S. § 25-

1227(A) divested the superior court of jurisdiction to establish a different 

child support order in Arizona.

¶6 We review a superior court's award of child support for abuse 

of discretion. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 30, ¶ 6 (App. 2002). An abuse 

of discretion occurs when the superior court "commits an error of law in the 

process of exercising its discretion." Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 107, ¶ 2

(App. 2005).

¶7 Father is correct that A.R.S. § 25-1227(A) provides that where 

a foreign support order has already been established, that order "is 

controlling and shall be recognized." However, to establish the primacy of 

a foreign support order, a party must submit "a copy of every child support 

order in effect and the applicable record of payments. The requesting party 

shall give notice of the request to each party whose rights may be affected 

by the determination." A.R.S. § 25-1227(D). Although Father brought some 

form of documentation to trial to support his claims that a foreign support 

order existed, and later attached a letter from an attorney in Mexico to his 

motion for reconsideration, he has not presented any document purporting 

to be a Mexico court order. Because Father has not presented the 

documentation required pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1227(D), the superior court 

did not abuse its discretion.

3

 

3 It is not clear that A.R.S. § 25-1227(A) divests the superior court of 

jurisdiction, rather than provide a means by which the superior court is to 

determine what order controls. Cf. Vicary v. Lake Havasu City, 222 Ariz. 218, 
NAVARRO v. GARCIA

Decision of the Court

4

CONCLUSION

¶8 The superior court did not abuse its discretion and we affirm

the order establishing child support and the judgment as to child support 

arrears.

4 

 

221-22, ¶12 (App. 2009) (noting distinction between jurisdictional issues 

and challenges to the merits of a ruling). Similarly, Father's brief only 

indirectly addresses whether Mexico meets the definition of "foreign 

country" under A.R.S. § 25-1202(5) such that Mexico's support orders can 

have the authority of "foreign support order" under the statute. Because 

Father has not satisfied the requirements of A.R.S. § 25-1227(D), it is 

unnecessary to resolve either of these issues.

4 The superior court ordered Father to pay child support until his son 

graduates from high school in May 2019, but the record indicates that the 

son will turn 19 in September 2018. Child support may be ordered to 

continue beyond the age of majority if the child is attending high school, 

but only until the child reaches 19 years of age. A.R.S. § 25-501(A). Because 

neither party has raised this issue, we leave it to the superior court to decide 

in the first instance whether the duration of the current grant of child 

support is consistent with A.R.S. § 25-501(A).