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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KAYLA STOCK, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

DERRICK BARTON, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0499 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900DO201900051

The Honorable Melinda K. Hardy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Riggs, Ellsworth & Porter PLC, Show Low 

By Michael R. Ellsworth

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Criss Candelaria Law Office PC, Concho

By Criss E. Candelaria

Counsel for Respondent/Appellee

FILED 5-5-2022
STOCK v. BARTON

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Acting Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge James B. Morse Jr.

joined.

C A T T A N I, Chief Judge:

¶1 Kayla Stock (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s 

final parenting-time order, which included terms requiring her to permit 

her child, D.B., to be exposed to Navajo culture, traditional ways, and 

values. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Derrick Barton (“Father”) are the parents of D.B., 

born in 2018. In early 2019, Mother filed a petition to establish legal 

decision-making authority and parenting time along with a request for

temporary orders. After a hearing, the superior court, on a temporary basis,

granted Mother sole legal decision-making authority and Father limited, 

supervised parenting time. The court permitted the parties to request

further review after 120 days to establish a permanent parenting plan.

¶3 Father timely submitted a proposed parenting-time plan, and 

the superior court held a hearing. The court then issued a final parentingtime order that affirmed the previous ruling granting Mother sole legal

decision-making authority. The court noted testimony that Father, a 

member of the Navajo Nation, had threatened to take D.B. from Mother and 

move to the Navajo nation where the tribe would give Father full custody 

of the minor child. The court also noted Father’s concern that Mother was 

unwilling to permit D.B. to be exposed to Father’s Navajo culture and 

heritage. Ultimately, the court ordered a permanent parenting plan, which 

included two paragraphs on “Tradition and Culture”:

The Father and [D.B.] are enrolled members of the Navajo 

Nation, or eligible for enrollment, and tradition and culture is 

innate to being a member of the Navajo Nation. Mother is to 

expose [D.B.] to Navajo Nation culture[,] traditional ways[,]

and values. Mother is to allow [D.B.] to participate in 

traditional ceremonies with Father and his family off the 
STOCK v. BARTON

Decision of the Court

3

Navajo reservation. Any traditional ceremonies held on the 

Navajo reservation are optional and if [D.B.] attends, then 

Mother or Mother’s designee shall accompany [D.B.] to and 

from the Navajo reservation.

Since no just cause was shown that Paternal 

Grandfather would endanger [D.B.] then Grandfather is 

permitted to supervise Father and [D.B.]. It is in the cultural 

best interest of [D.B.] to have Navajo Paternal Grandmother 

and Grandfather involved in [D.B.]’s exposure to Navajo 

Nation culture and traditional ways and values. Paternal 

Grandmother and Grandfather are encouraged to help and 

support Mother and [D.B.] about Navajo culture[,] traditional

ways[,] and values.

¶4 Mother timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 

A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶5 Mother challenges the superior court’s ruling requiring her to 

facilitate D.B.’s exposure to the Navajo Tribe’s culture, traditional ways, 

and values. Although Father did not file an answering brief, we decline to 

deem that failure a confession of error because a minor child’s best interests 

are at issue. See In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525, ¶ 2 (App. 2002).

¶6 We review parenting-time orders for an abuse of discretion. 

Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273, ¶ 11 (App. 2013). We will not substitute our

opinion for that of the superior court, and we will uphold the court’s 

findings unless the record, viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the order, contains no supporting evidence. In re Pima Cnty. Adoption of B6355 & H-533, 118 Ariz. 111, 115 (1978); Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 

(1999).

¶7 Mother argues that neither party raised the issue of exposure 

to Navajo culture. But the record shows Father raised the issue in his 

proposed parenting plan. Father asserted that Mother had tried to build a 

barrier between D.B. and his cultural ties to the Navajo Nation and his 

Navajo family and had refused to permit members of Father’s family to 

participate in any parenting time in the child’s life. Father sought an order 

authorizing him to travel with the child to the Navajo Reservation during 

his parenting time. He also sought an order that Mother not interfere or 

seek to curtail the child’s exposure and development in the Navajo culture 

or religion.
STOCK v. BARTON

Decision of the Court

4

¶8 Moreover, both parties testified at the hearing about D.B.’s

exposure to Navajo culture. Mother testified she thought it was important 

for the child to learn about his Navajo heritage and stated she has never 

been opposed to him learning about the Navajo heritage. Mother also 

expressed concerns, however, about Father taking D.B. to the reservation, 

explaining that she was not treated fairly because of her race when she was 

there, and that she was concerned that the tribe would take the minor child 

from her. Father indicated his desire to take the minor child to the 

reservation and testified that he and the child could participate in 

traditional ceremonies and blessings on the reservation, events that the 

child had not previously experienced. The issue of exposure to Navajo 

culture was squarely before the court.

¶9 Mother asserts that A.R.S. § 25-410 permits the superior court 

to limit the authority of the parent awarded sole legal decision-making only 

on motion by the other parent and after a hearing on the issue. But here, as 

noted above, the “limitation” on Mother’s authority was made after Father 

requested consideration of the issue and after a hearing at which both 

Father and Mother testified. And the ruling does not infringe on Mother’s 

right under A.R.S. § 25-410(A) to determine the child’s upbringing. Mother 

acknowledged the importance of D.B. learning about his Navajo heritage

and stated she had never opposed it. Read in conjunction with the court’s

two-paragraph discussion of culture and tradition, the court’s ruling 

directing that the child be allowed to participate with Father and his family 

in ceremonies off the reservation merely means that Mother is not to 

interfere or seek to curtail the child’s exposure and development in the 

Navajo culture. And the ruling addresses Mother’s stated concerns by

providing that on-reservation Navajo ceremonies are at Mother’s option, 

and that Mother or her designee must be permitted to accompany the child. 

We find no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.