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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JANET A. FORDYCE, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

PAUL M. NELSON, Defendant/Appellant

No. 1 CA-CV 18-0042 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FN2017-053807

The Honorable Richard F. Albrecht, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

Janet Fordyce, Windsor, CO

Plaintiff/Appellee

Paul M. Nelson, Overgaard

Defendant/Appellant

FILED 6-5-2018
FORDYCE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge David D. Weinzweig joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Paul M. Nelson appeals the superior court's entry and 

continuance of an order of protection in favor of Janet A. Fordyce. For the 

following reasons, we affirm.

¶2 In December 2017, Fordyce petitioned for an order of 

protection against Nelson, alleging he had threatened to harm her. The 

superior court found reasonable cause to believe Nelson "may commit an 

act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence 

within the past year" and issued an order of protection directing that he 

have no contact with Fordyce and prohibiting him from going to or near 

her residence. Nelson requested a hearing, which the court held within two 

weeks.

1 After hearing testimony from both parties, the court found good 

cause to continue the order of protection and directed that it remain in 

effect. Nelson timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, 

Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes 

("A.R.S.") section 12-2101(A)(5)(b) (2018).

2

¶3 Nelson argues the superior court erred by issuing and later 

continuing the order of protection because it was based on Fordyce's false 

allegations of domestic violence.3 "We review an order of protection for an 

abuse of discretion." Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259, ¶ 10 (App. 2014).

 

1 Before the hearing, Fordyce requested an amended order of 

protection. The court stated it would consider Fordyce's amended petition 

at the hearing, and later denied it.

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

version of a statute or rule.

3 Nelson also asserts that the superior court commissioner was biased 

and conducted unfair proceedings that did not comply with the applicable 
FORDYCE v. NELSON

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 A court shall issue an order of protection if it finds reasonable 

cause to believe that the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence 

or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year. A.R.S. § 

13-3602(E) (2018). The court may continue the protective order after a 

hearing if the plaintiff proves his or her case by a preponderance of the 

evidence. A.R.S. § 13-3602(I); Ariz. R. Prot. Order P. 38(g). Because Nelson

has not provided this court a transcript of the protective order hearing, we 

must presume the record supports the superior court's findings. See Baker 

v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). Accordingly, we assume Fordyce

presented credible evidence at the hearing that Nelson might commit an act 

of domestic violence or had committed an act of domestic violence within 

the past year. Without a transcript of the proceeding, we cannot say the 

court abused its discretion by granting and continuing the order of 

protection. We therefore affirm.

 

statutes or rules. Because Nelson does not develop this argument, we will 

not consider it. See State v. Carver, 160 Ariz. 167, 175 (1989) ("opening briefs 

must present significant arguments, supported by authority"; failure to 

properly argue a claim constitutes abandonment and waiver).