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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

In the Matter of:

DANETTE MILLER , Petitioner /Appellant
,

v.

THOMAS A

. MILLER , Respondent /Appellee

.
No. 1 CA

- CV 14

- 0 110 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2007

- 008371 The Honorable Veronica W. Brame , Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Danette Miller , Phoenix Petitioner /Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Maurice Portley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Jon W. Thompson joined.MILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court

2 P O R T L E Y , Judge:

¶1 Danette Miller (“Mother”) a ppeals the denial of her request for an award of attorneys’ fees. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order denying Mother’s fee request

.
BACKGROUND

¶2 Thomas Miller (“Father”) was found in contempt of the family court in 2012 for failing to comply with a s upport order. The court ordered Father t o pay his support obligation by February 1, 2012. When Father failed to comply, he was again found in contempt and the court instructed Mother to submit a fee affidavit. Following the court’s direction, Mother sub mitted a motion for attorneys’ fees and fee affidavit without objection by Father

. Inexplicably, t he court d enied Mother’s fee request

w ithout comment and Mother appealed from th e denial of her fee request (“2013 appeal”)

. ¶3 After considering the 2013 ap peal, t his court vacated the order denying Mother fees and remanded the case to allow the c o urt to “consider what amount of fees and costs are reasonable for Mother’s attempts to enforce the valid support orders.” Miller v. Miller, 1 CA

- CV 12

- 0567/12

- 0679 (consol.), 2013 WL5708197, at *3, ¶ 17 (July 25, 2013 ) (mem. decision)

. On remand
, Mother merely resubmitted her July 2012 affidavit for attorneys’ fees , but this time Father responded

. 1 The co urt again denied Moth er’s request in a signed order.

¶4 Mother filed a timely notice of appeal

. Father did not file an answering brief. In the exercise of our discretion we decline to treat this as a confession of error. See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 437, 6 57 P.2d 425, 425 (App. 19 82) (“A lthough we may regard [the] failure to respond as a confession of reversible error, we are not required to do so.”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12

- 2101(A)( 1 )

. 2

1 There was some confusion on remand because the 2013 appeal involved the remand of three different rulings: one by the commissioner (at issue in this appeal) and two by the superior court judge (not at issue in this appeal). See Miller, id. at *1, ¶¶ 2

- 5. Ultimately, the matters wer e resolved.

2 We cite to the current version of the statute unless otherwise noted.MILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court

3 DISCUSSION

¶5 W e review the denial of attorneys’ fees for an abuse of discretion

. See Democratic Party of Pima Cnty

. v. Ford
, 228 Ariz. 54 5 , 5 47 , ¶ 6, 269 P.3d 721
, 723 (App. 2012 ) . The family court may award attorneys’ fees and costs to one party after “considering the financial resources o f both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings.” See A.R.S. § 25

- 324

. ¶6 This court previously determi ned that it was an abus e of discretion to deny Mother ’s fee request in its entirety because “Moth er’s financial resources in 2012 were substantially less than Father’ s ” and the record did not “indicate any position Mother took that warranted a comple te denial of her fees and costs

. ” Miller, 1 CA

- CV 12

- 0567/12

- 0679, at

* 2, 3, ¶ ¶ 13 , 15

. Mother contends the court failed to follow the mandate b y denying her fee request. We disagree. The mandate directed the co urt to determine what amount of fees were reasonable for Mother’s attempts to enforce the support orders. Id. at * 3, ¶ 17

. Although thi s court determined Mother had substantially less financial resources than Father, the mandate did not direct the co urt to award fees regardless of the reasonableness of Mother’s positions. See
, e.g., Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 1 96 Ariz. 5, 7, ¶ 7, 992 P.2d 5, 7 (App. 1999)

. The co urt had discretion to consider the reasonableness of Mother’s fee request.

¶7 On remand, F ather asserted that Mother is a paralegal and th e fee affidavit did not specify that her attorney, and not Mother, performed the work billed. F ather also alleged that unspecified entries included inflated time. F ather , however, did not make the objections when Mother first requested fees in 2012. Because Mother only resubmitted her 2012 request on remand and did not add any additional information, Father’s objections are untimely. Moreover, there is no indication that any fees for paralegal services were billed in 2012 and the original fee affidavit stated that Mother’s attorney billed $250 per hour

. ¶8 This court instructed the co urt t o “consider what amount of fees and costs are reasonable for Mother’s attempts to enforce the valid support order.” Miller, at * 3, ¶ 17. On remand, the co urt list ed several pleadings considered in ruling on the m andate. Although those pleading s were considered and ruled on when the court initially denied Mother’s fee request in 2012
, Mo ther’s fee request did not include charges for th os eMILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court

4 pleadings

. T herefore, th os e pleadings are not relevant in determining the reasonable ness of Mother’s positions in the contempt proceedings

. 3

¶9 Mother has a right to enforce support orders and need not wait months to do so . Nonetheless
, the co urt impli ed that the filings in this case are duplicative and needlessly contentious. We agree. Mother’s amended motion for contempt sought relief on issues not before the co urt , i.e., the foreign judgment, a new reimbursement request, and health insurance coverage. Th e additional information needlessly confused the record, expanded the issues, and increased the amount of time and resources spent in the proceedings. The cited motions also request ed the same relief previously requested in other proceedings . For example, M other filed multiple pleadings seeking relief from Father ’s failure to comply w ith the co urt ’s January 5, 2012 order : a pretrial statement filed with the superior court judge on February 6, 2012 ; and the contempt motions filed with the court on March 2, 2012 and May 21, 2012

. It was unreasonable for Mother to raise the same issue b efore two different judicial officers, which also needlessly confused the proceedings and resulted in duplicated efforts by the parties as well as court staff. The record supports the co urt ’s conclusion that Mother took unreasonable positions in her
conte mpt proceedings. 4

¶10 We do not condone Father’s repeated failure to pay support orders, which are enforceable by contempt proceedings. However, i n her attempt to enforce that obligation, M other needlessly expanded and

3 Specifically, the following pleadings listed in the co urt ’s order were not included in Mother’s fee request : (1) Mother’s Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs filed Ma rch 20, 2012
, and Father’s response thereto ; Judge Whitten’s denial of the same and Mother’s unsuccessful motion for reconsideration; (2) Mother’s Objection to Filed Arrears Calculation filed June 25, 2012; (3) Mother’s Affidavit of Non

- Compliance and Reque st for Arrest Warrant filed July 11, 2012; (4) Mother’s Supplemental Affidavit of Non

- Compliance and Request for Arrest Warrant filed August 2, 2012; and (5) Father’s pur ge receipt filed July 27, 2012.

4 The co urt indicated that Mother’s motion for contemp t was filed less than a month after Judge Whitten entered judgment and requested relief for Father’s failure to pay support for the single month of February 2012. However, Mother’s motion for contempt argued that Father was in contempt of the commissioner ’s enforcement judgment/order filed January 10, 2012, and was not based on Judge Whitten’s February 10, 2012 j udgment (filed March 7, 2012).MILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court

5 confused the contempt proceedings. The refore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her request for attorneys’ fees

.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

¶11 Mother requests an award of fees and costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 25

- 324

. Mother represented herself on appeal and
, therefore, is not entitled to attorneys’ fees. See Connor v. Cal

- Az Props., Inc., 137 Ariz. 53, 56, 668 P.2d 896, 899 (App. 1983) (recognizing that party filing pro per cannot claim attorneys’ fees due to the absence of an attorney

- client relationship)

. We also deny Mother ’s request for costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 25

- 324(A) because she was not the successful party. A.R.S. § 12

- 342 (A) ( authorizing award of costs to successful party on appeal).

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm the order denying Mo ther’s July 2012 request for attorneys’ fees and costs

.