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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AZITA RAHIMIAN, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

HESSAM RAHIMIAN, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0640 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2013-091296 

The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

COUNSEL

Parley Family Law Solutions, PLC, Phoenix

By Jared Sandler

Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

Martin C. Klass, Attorney at Law, Glendale

By Martin C. Klass

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

FILED 8-4-2022
RAHIMIAN v. RAHIMIAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Presiding 

Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

S W A N N, Judge:

¶1 Hessam Rahimian (“Father”) appeals from the superior 

court’s order modifying child support and denying his request for 

attorney’s fees. We hold that the court denied Father due process by 

modifying the child support order sua sponte. We therefore vacate and 

remand in part. We affirm the court’s denial of Father’s request for 

attorney’s fees.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Azita Rahimian (“Mother”) dissolved their 

marriage by consent decree in December 2013. The parties agreed that 

Mother would be the primary residential parent of their three minor 

children, with Father exercising parenting time every other weekend and 

three days during the week on weeks that Father did not have parenting 

time over the weekend. The parties also agreed that Father would pay 

Mother $1,000 per month in child support for the first 24 months, and $500 

per month thereafter. The court approved and incorporated these 

agreements in the final dissolution decree. In October 2014, the parties 

agreed to modify parenting time to allow Father to exercise parenting time 

every other week from Friday at 8 am to Thursday at 3 pm.

¶3 Around December 2014, Mother stopped exercising 

parenting time with the children to attend nursing school. At this time, the 

children began residing with Father full time, and Father stopped paying 

Mother child support. In the years that followed, the parties engaged in 

significant post-decree litigation. Mother exercised virtually no parenting 

time with the children after December 2014, despite filing several petitions 

to enforce her parenting time.

¶4 In January 2019, Father petitioned to modify legal decisionmaking, parenting time, and child support. After a hearing, the court 

designated Father as the primary residential parent and gave Mother 

parenting time every other weekend. The court found that Father’s actions 
RAHIMIAN v. RAHIMIAN

Decision of the Court

3

prevented Mother from having a relationship with her children and 

threatened to impose monetary sanctions if Father did not allow Mother to 

exercise her parenting time. The court also ordered Mother and the 

children to work with a therapeutic interventionalist to begin to repair their 

relationship. The therapeutic interventionalist’s fees were apportioned 

equally between Mother and Father.

¶5 In November 2019, Father filed a motion to alter or amend the 

judgment under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“Rule”) 83, asking 

the court to modify the existing child support order based on the court’s 

2019 parenting time modification. The court granted Father’s motion and 

ordered Mother to pay Father $11,718 in arrears from the time the petition 

to modify was filed and $961 per month in child support thereafter (the 

“2019 Modification”).

¶6 In April 2020, Mother filed a petition to enforce child support 

arrears, seeking to hold Father in contempt of court for unpaid child 

support. Father also filed a motion for contempt, arguing that Mother failed 

to pay child support and her portion of the therapeutic interventionist’s 

fees.

¶7 After a hearing, the court denied Mother’s petition because 

she failed to timely seek unpaid child support. The court granted Father’s 

motion in part, holding Mother in contempt of court for failure to pay child 

support but not for her failure to pay for the therapeutic interventionalist. 

The court also ordered a deviation from the 2019 Modification, modifying 

Mother’s child support obligation from $961 per month to $0 starting in 

November 2019 (the “2021 Modification”). The court denied Father’s 

request for attorney’s fees.

¶8 Father filed a Rule 83 motion, arguing the court violated 

A.R.S. § 25-503(E) by modifying child support without a petition. The court 

denied Father’s motion, finding that Father’s conduct constituted “changed 

circumstances” to justify the 2021 Modification. See A.R.S. § 25-503(E).

¶9 Father appeals.
RAHIMIAN v. RAHIMIAN

Decision of the Court

4

DISCUSSION

I. THE COURT DENIED FATHER DUE PROCESS BY MODIFYING 

CHILD SUPPORT WITHOUT GIVING HIM NOTICE AND AN 

OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

¶10 Father argues the court erred by modifying child support sua 

sponte.

1 We review the court’s decision to modify a child support order for 

abuse of discretion. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999). “A court 

abuses its discretion if it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary 

conclusion.” Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ariz. 486, 490, ¶ 9 (App. 2012) (citation

omitted).

¶11 The court may modify or terminate a child support order 

upon the filing of a petition showing changed circumstances that are 

“substantial and continuing.” A.R.S. § 25-503(E). Even in the absence of a 

petition to modify child support, if the court modifies parenting time, it 

must also determine whether to modify child support. A.R.S. § 25-

403.09(A); Heidbreder v. Heidbreder, 230 Ariz. 377, 380, ¶ 9 (App. 2012).

¶12 Neither situation is present here. For the 2021 Modification, 

neither Mother nor Father petitioned to modify child support, and the court 

did not modify parenting time. Although Father petitioned to modify child 

support in 2019, that petition was addressed by the 2019 Modification.

¶13 The court cannot modify child support sua sponte without first 

providing the affected parent his “due process right to adequate notice and 

a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 381, ¶ 13. Here, the scope of 

the court’s evidentiary hearing was limited to child support arrears and 

payment of the therapeutic interventionalist’s fees. The court did not take 

evidence, allow briefing, or hear arguments related to child support 

modification. Accordingly, we vacate the 2021 Modification and remand 

for briefing and a hearing to allow the parties to present evidence relevant 

to child support modification.

1 Although Mother did not file an answering brief, in an exercise of 

our discretion, we decline to treat that failure as a confession of error and 

instead address the merits of Father’s appeal. See Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 

256, 259, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
RAHIMIAN v. RAHIMIAN

Decision of the Court

5

II. REASONABLE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE COURT’S DENIAL OF 

ATTORNEY’S FEES.

¶14 Father argues the court abused its discretion by denying his 

request for attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 25-324. We review the court’s 

denial of attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion. Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 

246 Ariz. 277, 286, ¶ 29 (App. 2019).

¶15 Under § 25-324(A), the superior court may award attorney’s

fees after consideration of the financial resources and reasonableness of the 

parties’ positions throughout the proceedings. Here, the court found that 

there was a substantial disparity in financial resources between Mother and 

Father, and Father had greater resources. Finding that both parties acted 

unreasonably, the court denied Father’s request for attorney’s fees.

¶16 Father argues the record does not support the court’s finding 

that he acted unreasonably because he prevailed on his contempt motion. 

He contends that it was Mother who acted unreasonably.

¶17 First, § 25-324 does not impose a prevailing party standard for 

awarding fees. See Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74, 84, ¶ 39 (App. 2007). 

Father’s partial success on his contempt motion therefore does not entitle 

him to attorney’s fees. Second, the record supports the court’s conclusion 

that both parties acted unreasonably. Father sought to hold Mother in 

contempt for failing to pay child support and her portion of the therapeutic 

interventionist’s fees. In doing so, he asked the court to ignore his own 

contempt for refusing to allow Mother to exercise her parenting time. 

Meanwhile, Mother asked the court to offset the amount of child support 

she owed Father under the 2019 Modification with the amount of child 

support Father owed her under the consent decree. Mother waited to 

collect five years of unpaid child support until after the 2019 Modification, 

despite filing numerous other motions to enforce the consent decree over 

the years.

¶18 Father also argues the court erred by denying his request for 

attorney’s fees under § 25-324(B)(2) because Mother’s petition to enforce 

child support arrears was not “grounded in fact or based on law.” Under 

§ 25-324(B)(2), the court must award a party reasonable attorney’s fees if the

other party’s petition is “not grounded in fact or based on law.” The court 

found that § 25-324(B) did not apply.

¶19 Mother’s petition was grounded in fact because Father 

admitted that he did not pay Mother child support after December 2014. 

The court denied Mother’s petition because it was untimely. The court 
RAHIMIAN v. RAHIMIAN

Decision of the Court

6

expressed no opinion as to the merits of Mother’s claim. The mere fact that 

Mother did not prevail does not mean her petition was not based on a 

reasonable legal position. We discern no abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶20 We vacate and remand in part, and affirm in part, for the 

reasons set forth above. Having considered the relevant factors, we deny

Father’s request for attorney’s fees under § 25-324(A), and because Mother 

did not file an answering brief, § 25-324(B) does not apply. Father is entitled 

to recover his costs on appeal upon compliance with ARCAP 21.