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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL 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

MARCUS FERRARO, Petitioner/Appellant, 

v.

HAVA FERRARO, Respondent/Appellee. 

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0500 FC 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County 

No. FC2014-071745 

The Honorable Stasy D. Avelar, Judge 

AFFIRMED 

COUNSEL 

Marcus Ferraro, Surprise 

Petitioner/Appellant 

Hava Ferraro, Peoria 

Respondent/Appellee

FILED 05-14-2024 
FERRARO v. FERRARO 

Decision of the Court 

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in 

which Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined. 

H O W E, Judge: 

¶1 Marcus Ferraro (“Father”) appeals from the family court’s 

order granting sole legal decision-making authority over his daughter to 

his ex-wife Hava Ferraro (“Mother”). We affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

¶2 Father and Mother are the parents of two minor children, A.F. 

and E.F. Father and Mother married in 2005 and divorced in 2014. In 

September 2020, the family court awarded the parties joint legal decision 

-making authority, with Father having the final say on issues involving the 

children’s education. 

¶3 In July 2022, Mother petitioned the family court to modify 

Father’s legal decision-making authority and parenting time for A.F., her 

older child. She and Father disagreed about certain mental health 

challenges facing A.F., with Mother seeking medical intervention and 

Father characterizing the issues as those experienced by a “typical 

teenager.” The court held an evidentiary hearing, where Mother, Father, 

and a court-appointed advisor testified and presented evidence. A 

physician’s report on A.F.’s mental health issues showed that the child 

suffered from depression and suicidal ideation, and that the child was 

undergoing counseling and pharmaceutical treatment. 

¶4 While Father acknowledged at the hearing that A.F. had 

mental health issues, exhibits showed that he removed A.F. from care 

against medical advice and that the child’s pharmacist “ha[d] great 

concerns about [Father’s] recent emails and some actions that ha[d] been 

taken by [Father.]” Father sent Mother messages accusing her of having 

“Munchausen syndrome by proxy,” a condition he defined as where “[t]he 

caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms 

or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick.” 
FERRARO v. FERRARO 

Decision of the Court 

3 

¶5 The court granted Mother’s petition, awarding her sole legal 

decision-making authority, setting forth a new parenting schedule, and 

ordering that Father pay child support. Later, on Mother’s motion, the court 

clarified that Father had the duty of providing transportation for his 

parenting time with both children. Father now appeals, and this court has 

jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1). 

DISCUSSION 

¶6 Father’s brief does not comply with the civil appellate rules 

because it fails to include any citation to legal authority or set forth any 

issues for review. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a). Nonetheless, we exercise 

our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, see Clemens v. Clark, 

101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966), insofar that true legal issues can be gleaned from 

Father’s brief. 

¶7 Father’s primary contention appears to be that the court gave 

undue weight to some evidence while improperly ignoring other evidence. 

He alleges the undue weight led to the order granting Mother legal 

decision-making authority and adjusting Father’s parenting time which 

resulted in the increased child support order. The court’s legal 

decision-making and parenting-time orders are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding 

the decision. See DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 423 ¶ 9 (App. 2019). 

¶8 Upon a motion to modify legal decision-making or parenting 

time, the court first determines whether a material change in circumstances 

affecting the child’s welfare exists. See Backstrand v. Backstrand, 250 Ariz. 

339, 343 ¶ 14 (App. 2020). If such changed circumstances exist, the court 

then determines whether modification would be in the child’s best interests. 

A.R.S. § 25-403(A); Backstrand, 250 Ariz. at 343 ¶ 14. 

¶9 Here, the court found that Father and Mother’s “consistent[] 

struggle[s] not only with their communication but also with their decisions 

regarding the appropriate medical care for” A.F. presented a material 

change in circumstances. The record, replete with instances of 

disagreement and contention, supports the court’s conclusion. Father 

minimized A.F.’s mental health issues and discharged her from care against 

medical advice. The court then considered, at length, the required statutory 

factors relevant to the best-interests inquiry, see A.R.S. 

§§ 25-403(A), -403.01(B), and set forth a thorough, well-reasoned, and 

record-based explanation of its decision that modification would be best for 

A.F. The court did not abuse its discretion. 
FERRARO v. FERRARO 

Decision of the Court 

4 

CONCLUSION 

¶10 We affirm.