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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JACK D. ROSFELD, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

CHRISTINA J. PAINTER, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0481 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2018-008318

The Honorable Michael C. Blair, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Gillespie Shields Goldfarb Taylor, Phoenix

By David L. Goldfarb

Co-counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Gillespie Shields Goldfarb Taylor, Mesa

By Mark A. Shields

Co-counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

FILED 2-27-2020
ROSFELD v. PAINTER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Diane M. Johnsen joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Jack Rosfeld appeals the trial court’s ruling denying his in loco

parentis petition seeking legal decision-making authority and primary 

physical custody and his alternative request for third-party visitation. For 

the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the record in the light most favorable to supporting 

the trial court’s order. In re Marriage of Friedman and Roels, 244 Ariz. 111, 113 

¶ 2 (2018). Christina Painter (“Mother”) and Rosfeld were in a romantic 

relationship from March 2012 to April 2015. In April 2015, Mother became 

involved in a romantic relationship with Michael Marquez (“Father”), 

moved in with him, and later became pregnant. In July 2015, Mother and 

Father ended their relationship and Mother moved back in with Rosfeld, 

and they maintained a platonic relationship. In March 2016, Mother gave 

birth to her son, A.P. Rosfeld was the only father figure for A.P. until

November 2018.

¶3 While Mother lived with Rosfeld, he paid for all her expenses.

Rosfeld cared for A.P. during the day while Mother was at work and took 

A.P. to doctors’ appointments, took him on vacations, and did other 

activities with him. A.P. began to refer to Rosfeld as “Dad,” and Mother 

gave Rosfeld gifts on A.P.’s behalf. In March 2017, Mother and A.P. moved 

into their own apartment. After that move, Rosfeld continued to care for 

A.P. while Mother was at work. Mother then started dating Ryan Malleo,

who has known A.P. since he was five months’ old and has developed a 

strong bond with A.P.

¶4 Mother became addicted to methamphetamine in 2018, and 

Rosfeld found methamphetamine in Mother’s apartment. Rosfeld 

consequently petitioned for in loco parentis, seeking legal decision-making 

authority and primary physical custody of A.P. He also moved for

temporary emergency custody of A.P. After Rosfeld petitioned for in loco 
ROSFELD v. PAINTER

Decision of the Court

3

parentis, Mother started going to TERROS for drug counseling. The trial 

court denied the temporary custody motion and set the case for trial. The 

trial court also ordered Mother to undergo random drug testing and 

continue drug counseling through TERROS. Before trial, Rosfeld filed a 

pretrial statement that also included a request for third-party visitation.

¶5 By November 2018, Mother had cut off Rosfeld’s contact with

A.P. Mother completed drug counseling through TERROS and tested 

negative for drugs from November 2018 through March 2019. In the 

meantime, Father began visiting A.P. once every two weeks and developed 

a strong bond with A.P., who now calls him “Dad.”

¶6 At trial, Rosfeld’s expert, Dr. Daniel J. Gaughan, testified that 

Rosfeld had a strong bond with A.P. and that third-party visitation with 

Rosfeld would be in A.P.’s best interests. Dr. Gaughan also testified that

Mother sent text messages to her friend saying she thought about harming 

herself every day. Dr. Gaughan further testified that, based on Mother’s 

deposition testimony, she was in denial about her drug problem and that 

he had little confidence that she would remain sober. Dr. Gaughan

admitted, however, that Mother did not present a current risk to A.P. given 

her clean drug tests. He also admitted that he never observed A.P. and 

never observed the child with any of the adults involved in the case.

¶7 Malleo testified that he was present when Mother and Rosfeld 

got into an argument at her apartment. Malleo said that Rosfeld became 

angry and started hitting a wall. Mother also testified that Rosfeld had 

anger issues from post-traumatic stress disorder. Mother further testified 

that giving third-party visitation to Rosfeld would be detrimental to A.P. 

because it would confuse him now that Father is involved in his life.

¶8 During trial, Rosfeld abandoned his request for in loco parentis

and instead asked the court to grant him third-party visitation. Following 

trial, the trial court denied Rosfeld’s petition for legal decision-making and 

primary custody of A.P. and his request for third-party visitation. Rosfeld 

timely appealed the denial of his request for third-party visitation.

1

DISCUSSION

¶9 Rosfeld argues that the trial court abused its discretion in 

denying his request for third-party visitation without making specific

findings on the record about all the relevant factors under A.R.S. 

1 Rosfeld does not appeal the trial court’s ruling denying his petition 

for legal decision-making authority and primary custody of A.P.
ROSFELD v. PAINTER

Decision of the Court

4

§ 25–409(E). We review issues of law and the application of statutory 

provisions de novo. See Egan v. Fridlund-Horne, 221 Ariz. 229, 232 ¶ 8 (App. 

2009). When deciding whether to grant third-party visitation, the court

“shall give special weight to the legal parents’ opinion of what serves their 

child’s best interests and consider all relevant factors[.]” A.R.S. § 25–409(E).

We review a trial court’s decision to deny visitation for an abuse of 

discretion. McGovern v. McGovern, 201 Ariz. 172, 175 ¶ 6 (App. 2001). An 

abuse of discretion exists when the record is devoid of competent evidence 

to support the decision. In re Marriage of Friedman, 244 Ariz. at 120 ¶ 36.

¶10 Section 25–409(E) does not require a trial court to make 

specific findings on the record about a child’s best interests in third-party 

visitation cases. Compare A.R.S § 25–403(B) (requiring a trial court to make 

specific findings on the record in contested cases about legal

decision-making and parenting time). Even so, the trial court made specific 

findings about each factor enumerated under § 25–409(E). Rosfeld argues 

Mother’s drug history poses a threat to the child, but in denying his request 

for visitation, the court specifically considered Mother’s substance abuse.

While the trial court did not address every negative fact introduced at trial,

the court was not required to do so. See A.R.S. § 25–409. Therefore, the trial 

court did not err when making its findings.

¶11 Rosfeld also argues that the trial court failed to analyze 

evidence of Mother’s substance abuse, Mother’s texts concerning self-harm, 

and the testimony from Dr. Gaughan that A.P. would suffer a detriment by 

having his contact with Rosfeld cut off. Rosfeld further argues that without 

the required findings, this Court cannot presume that the trial court 

properly analyzed the presumption that “a fit parent acts in his or her 

child’s best interests” or whether Rosfeld rebutted that presumption. See 

McGovern, 201 Ariz. at 177 ¶ 17.

¶12 As previously stated, the trial court was not required to make 

specific findings under A.R.S. § 25–409(E). And while the court’s analysis 

does not detail Mother’s substance abuse, self-harm texts, or Dr. Gaughan’s 

testimony, the trial court’s comprehensive decision does note Mother’s 

substance abuse and Dr. Gaughan’s testimony. Even though the court’s 

analysis was not as detailed as Rosfeld may have wanted, the court was not 

required to list every finding. See A.R.S. § 25–409(E).

¶13 Additionally, competent evidence supports the trial court’s 

ruling denying Rosfeld’s request for third-party visitation. Dr. Gaughan 

admitted that Mother did not present a current risk to A.P. and that he 

never observed A.P. with Mother, with Father, or with Rosfeld. The trial 
ROSFELD v. PAINTER

Decision of the Court

5

court also heard testimony that Rosfeld had anger issues and that 

third-party visitation would be detrimental to A.P. because visitation 

would confuse him now that Father is involved in the child’s life and

bonded with him. Because competent evidence supports the trial court’s 

ruling, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rosfeld’s request

for third-party visitation.

CONCLUSION

¶14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.