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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

RASHAWN DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, Petitioner/Appellee, 

v.

JUANA DELIA ORNELEAS FLORES, Respondent/Appellant. 

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0636 FC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. FC2013-053306 

 FC2016-008419 

 (Consolidated)

The Honorable Lisa Ann VandenBerg, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

RaShawn D. Williams, Surprise

Petitioner/Appellee

Juna Flores, Phoenix

Respondent/Appellant

FILED 6-2-2020
WILLIAMS v. FLORES

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Juana Flores (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s denial of her 

Petition to Modify Parenting Time. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Rashawn Williams (“Father”) had one child 

together, K.W, born in 2012. Mother and Father never married and had 

limited contact with each other before K.W.’s birth. In 2013, Father 

petitioned for a paternity test, child custody, parenting time, and child 

support in Maricopa County. At trial, both parents agreed that Father was

the biological father of K.W. The court then transferred and consolidated 

the case with a parallel paternity case in Santa Cruz County. The Santa Cruz 

County Superior Court issued an order granting joint legal decisionmaking and a schedule for overnight stays for K.W. with Father. 

¶3 Mother took K.W. and absconded to Mexico in 2014. Father

reported K.W. missing to Nogales Police, the U.S. State Department, and 

the FBI. The Santa Cruz County Superior Court then entered an order 

awarding Father full legal decision-making of K.W. and denying Mother

parenting time. In 2015, authorities located K.W. in Mexico and a Mexican 

court reunified K.W. and Father. Mother returned to the United States that 

same year.

¶4 In 2017, after the case was transferred back to Maricopa 

County, the court modified the 2015 decree. The 2017 order reaffirmed

Father’s sole legal decision-making and physical custody of K.W., finding 

that substantial contact between Mother and K.W. would endanger the 

child. Before allowing visits with K.W., the court required Mother to 

undergo a psychological evaluation, followed by a therapeutic intervention 

at Mother’s expense. The court ordered all of Mother’s parenting time to be 

through the therapeutic intervention process, and the appointed 

interventionist would have discretion to determine contact between K.W. 

and Mother. The court further ordered that if therapeutic intervention 
WILLIAMS v. FLORES

Decision of the Court

3 

services were interrupted or suspended over Mother’s inability to pay, 

Mother would have sixty days to catch up or have the services 

discontinued. Upon discontinuation of services, Mother would have to 

petition the court to reinstate services. 

¶5 Between January 2017 and April 2018, the appointed 

therapeutic interventionist provided five updates to the court and began 

the intervention process. But in August 2018 the interventionist’s sixth 

report revealed no appointments and no payments in that four-month 

period. The fifth and sixth reports suggest services stopped short of 

meetings between Mother and K.W. because Mother’s pending criminal 

charges could abruptly interfere with services. The record contains no

further therapeutic intervention appointments or reports. 

¶6 Mother petitioned in November 2018 to replace therapeutic 

intervention with supervised visitation. The court denied the petition

without a hearing. Mother again moved to establish supervised visitation 

twice in 2019, to no avail. Mother appealed the first denial, which we

dismissed after Mother failed to obtain an order containing Arizona Rule of 

Family Law Procedure 78(c) language. Mother did not petition to reinstitute 

therapeutic intervention services.

¶7 In late 2019, Mother petitioned to modify parenting time for a 

third time. She again asked the court to permit supervised visitation 

without therapeutic intervention, which the superior court again denied 

without a hearing. In explaining its denial, the court noted Mother’s 

petition did not allege any change in circumstances warranting a 

modification. Mother timely appealed from this latest denial.

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review a trial court’s denial of a petition to modify 

parenting time for abuse of discretion. Pridgeon v. Superior Ct., 134 Ariz. 177, 

179 (1982). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining 

the family court’s decision. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009). 

¶9 In considering a petition to modify parenting time, a court 

must first consider whether a change in circumstances has occurred.

Pridgeon, 134 Ariz. at 179; see also Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469, 472, 

¶ 10 (App. 2018). “A trial court has broad discretion to determine whether 

a change of circumstances has occurred.” Pridgeon, 134 Ariz. at 179. A court 

must then determine if that change constitutes a “material change in 

circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” Vincent v. Nelson, 238 Ariz. 
WILLIAMS v. FLORES

Decision of the Court

4 

150, 155, ¶¶ 16–17 (App. 2015) (quoting Canty v. Canty, 178 Ariz. 443, 448 

(App. 1994)). 

¶10 Mother did not allege a change in circumstances since the last 

order that materially impacts K.W.’s best interests. See Pridgeon, 134 Ariz. at 

181–82 (noting the one filing a motion bears the statutory burden of 

showing adequate cause for a hearing); see also Canty v. Canty, 178 Ariz. 443, 

448 (App. 1994). She instead asked the court to modify the order because 

she was unwilling and financially unable to continue with court mandated 

therapeutic intervention. The court in its 2017 order placed the onus on 

Mother to comply with and pay for a therapeutic intervention plan. The 

order contemplated that Mother might be unable to pay with a 60-day cure 

period before therapeutic intervention would be terminated. And the court 

provided a mechanism for Mother to reinstitute that process by petitioning 

the court. Mother did not meet the terms of the order and did not appeal 

that order. The court did not abuse its discretion in finding no change in 

circumstances supported modification of parenting time. 

¶11 Mother claims that the court erred by denying her petition 

without giving her the benefit of a hearing. But a court need not hold a 

hearing before denying a petition seeking only to modify parenting time. In 

general, a parent seeking modification of a legal decision-making or 

parenting-time order must provide evidence to support the proposed 

change, and if the parent demonstrates “adequate cause” the court must 

hold a hearing. A.R.S. § 25-411(L). But the legislature specifically exempted 

petitions only seeking to modify parenting time from the hearing 

requirements. A.R.S. § 25-411(N) (“Subsection L of this section does not 

apply if the requested relief is for the modification or clarification of 

parenting time and not for a change of legal decision-making.”). The court 

did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition without a hearing.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.