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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

EVELYN RODRIGUEZ CHAVEZ, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

DARYL ABRAN CHAVEZ, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 14-0705 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2008-094231

The Honorable Boyd W. Dunn, Judge

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART

COUNSEL

Evelyn Rodriguez Chavez, Chandler

Petitioner/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Patricia K. Norris and Judge Patricia A. Orozco joined.
CHAVEZ v. CHAVEZ

Decision of the Court

2

G O U L D, Judge:

¶1 Evelyn Chavez (“Mother”) appeals from the family court’s 

order modifying child support. For the following reasons, we vacate and 

remand in part, and we affirm in part.

1 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In 2009, the family court entered a decree awarding Mother 

sole legal custody of the parties’ two minor children, J.C. and A.C. In 2012, 

Mother sought to relocate the children from Arizona to Texas, but the 

family court denied her request. Mother decided to relocate to Texas 

without the children and, as a result, the family court modified custody and 

awarded physical custody of the children to Daryl Chavez (“Father”). The 

family court also ordered Mother to pay Father child support. 

¶3 Mother returned to Arizona and filed a petition to modify 

parenting time and child support on December 20, 2013. Because Father 

evaded service of Mother’s petition, the family court granted Mother’s 

request to serve Father at his place of employment. Father was served with

the petition on February 10, 2014. 

¶4 The family court issued temporary orders awarding Mother 

and Father equal parenting time beginning February 19, 2014. On August 

26, 2014, the family court modified custody and child support as to A.C., 

the parties’ sole remaining minor child.2 The court designated Mother as 

A.C.’s primary residential parent and ordered Father to pay Mother child 

support commencing September 1, 2014. The court also ordered Mother to 

pay Father child support arrearages for December 1, 2012 through July 31, 

2014. Mother timely appealed. 

 

1 Father did not file an answering brief. Although we may treat this 

as a confession of error, we instead exercise our discretion to decide this 

appeal on the merits relying on the opening brief and our review of the 

appellate record. See Patterson v. Patterson, 226 Ariz. 356, 358 n.2 (App. 2011)

2 J.C. graduated from high school in May 2013, and turned 18 in 

August 2013. 
CHAVEZ v. CHAVEZ

Decision of the Court

3

DISCUSSION 

¶5 Mother argues the family court’s order modifying child 

support should have been effective January 1, 2014, the first day of the 

month following the filing of her petition, rather than September 1, 2014. 

¶6 We review the family court’s decision to modify the child 

support for an abuse of discretion. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 

(1999). However, interpretation of statutes and the Arizona Child Support 

Guidelines present questions of law, which we review de novo. Guerra v. 

Bejarano, 212 Ariz. 442, 443, ¶ 6 (App. 2006). 

¶7 A modified support order is “effective on the first day of the 

month following notice of the petition for modification . . . unless the court, 

for good cause shown, orders the change to become effective at a different 

date but not earlier than the date of filing the petition for modification.” 

Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 25-327(A), –503(E). 

¶8 Mother filed the petition for modification on December 20, 

2013, and Father was served on February 10, 2014. Under the plain 

language of A.R.S. sections 25-327(A) and –503(E), absent good cause 

shown, the presumptive effective date for the modified support order is

March 1, 2014. 

¶9 There is no evidence in the record establishing good cause for 

delaying the effective date of the support order. Indeed, the court’s

temporary orders awarding Mother and Father equal parenting time 

beginning February 19, 2014 would appear to support an earlier effective 

date. Accordingly, pursuant to A.R.S. sections 25-327(A) and –503(E), we 

vacate the family court’s order establishing the effective date of support as

September 1, 2014, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

decision. 

¶10 Mother contends that she is not liable for any support 

payments for J.C. retroactive to the date of J.C.’s emancipation. We 

disagree. 

¶11 A person has a “duty to provide all reasonable support for 

that person’s . . . unemancipated children.” A.R.S. § 25-501(A). A child is 

emancipated on the child’s eighteenth birthday. A.R.S. § 25-503(O)(2). 

However, when a child support order provides support for more than one 

child, even when the duty to provide support stops because one child 

reaches her majority, the support order for the emancipated child does not

automatically terminate. Bejarano, 212 Ariz. at 446, ¶ 15; see also A.R.S. § 25-
CHAVEZ v. CHAVEZ

Decision of the Court

4

320 app. § 25. Rather, to modify child support under these circumstances, 

a party must make a written request for the court to modify child support. 

Id. 

¶12 Here, the child support order provided support for two 

children. Although J.C. reached her majority in August 2013, Mother did 

not file a request to modify the order until December 20, 2013. As a result, 

the family court was not permitted to retroactively modify Mother’s child 

support obligation as to J.C. to a date earlier than December 20, 2013. A.R.S. 

§§ 25-327(A), –503(E); Bejarano, 212 Ariz. at 446, ¶ 15. Accordingly, we 

affirm the family court’s order denying Mother’s request for retroactive 

termination of child support for J.C. 

¶13 Mother also argues the family court was required to make an 

express finding that J.C. is emancipated. 

¶14 There is no legal requirement that a court make an express 

finding of a child’s emancipation. See A.R.S. § 25-503(O)(2). Mother 

concedes that the court reached the correct factual and legal conclusion that

support may only be ordered for A.C. In addition, the family court’s 

support order correctly states the parties have only one remaining minor 

child, and the award of support is solely for that minor child. We find no 

error.

¶15 Finally, in our discretion, we deny Mother’s request for 

attorneys’ fees on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-503(E) and document 

preparation fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.02. However we grant 

Mother’s request for costs upon her compliance with ARCAP 21. 

CONCLUSION

¶16 For the foregoing reasons, as to the effective date of the child 

support modification order, we vacate and remand for further proceedings; 

however, we affirm the family court’s order denying Mother’s request for

retroactive termination of J.C.’s child support.