Court Opinion

ID: 9383569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-30 18:03:06.006518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:46.282465
License: Public Domain

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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

               EZRA CALEB LANGHAM, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

               JAMIE LEE KREBSBACH, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0394 FC
                                 FILED 3-30-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. FC2017-000223
                   The Honorable Gregory Como, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

The Law Office of Joel L. Brand, Peoria
By Joel L. Brand
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Ashley Donovan Law PLLC, Tempe
By Ashley Donovan
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
                        LANGHAM v. KREBSBACH
                          Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Vice
Chief Judge David B. Gass and Judge Maurice Portley1 joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1           Ezra Langham appeals superior court orders regarding
parenting time, legal decision-making, and child support concerning his
and Jamie Krebsbach’s minor child (“Charles”2). For the following reasons,
we affirm.

                      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2             Charles was born in October 2016. In January 2017, Langham
filed a petition to establish paternity, for sole legal decision-making
authority, for Krebsbach to pay him child support, and to limit Krebsbach’s
interactions with Charles to supervised parenting time only. The court
entered final orders in March 2018. Because of Krebsbach’s mental health
struggles, the court awarded Langham sole legal decision-making
authority, the majority of the parenting time, and child support of $542.95
per month. It also granted Krebsbach supervised parenting time. As part of
its resolution of the case, and to facilitate Krebsbach’s return to
unsupervised parenting time, the court ordered her to undergo mental
health treatment under the supervision of court-appointed therapeutic
interventionist, Dr. Raymond E. Branton, PsyD, LP.

¶3             More than two years later in September 2020, Langham
initiated the present litigation by filing a petition to modify parenting time,
child support, and to hold Krebsbach in contempt for non-payment of child
support. At Langham’s request, the court again appointed Dr. Branton to
serve as therapeutic interventionist. In January 2021, Krebsbach filed a
counter-petition, also requesting modification of legal decision-making,
parenting time, and child support. In June, the court adopted Dr. Branton’s

1      The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Court of
Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant
to Article 6, Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution.

2      We use a pseudonym to protect the identity of the minor child.

                                      2
                        LANGHAM v. KREBSBACH
                          Decision of the Court

findings suggesting Krebsbach’s mental health had significantly improved
and awarded her increased, unsupervised parenting time with Charles. The
superior court also ordered Dr. Branton to provide both parties with “all
medical/counseling records he receives” regarding Krebsbach’s ongoing
treatment. Finally, the court set a trial date for September 2021 and ordered
that discovery and disclosure be completed at least 30 days before trial and
used the same deadline for the parties to file any motions to continue.

¶4            About two months before the trial, Langham moved to
compel Dr. Branton to release Krebsbach’s medical and counseling records,
asserting he had not received them all. After the 30-day deadline had
passed, Langham served Krebsbach with discovery requests and moved to
convert the trial to a status conference (a de facto motion to continue) to
give him time to compel disclosure of all Krebsbach’s records. The court
denied both motions and proceeded to hold the trial as scheduled.

¶5            After the trial, the court awarded Krebsbach joint legal
decision-making and increased her parenting time, but deferred addressing
modification for child support. In a final judgment entered April 2022, the
court modified its child support order, considering both Krebsbach’s
payment defaults and Langham’s Veteran Administration disability
benefits. The court also entered an equal health insurance adjustment for
Charles’s health insurance, although Langham pays $354 per month and
Krebsbach pays $108 per month.

¶6            Langham timely appealed both orders, and we have
jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 12-2101(A)(1).

                               DISCUSSION

I.     Standard of Review

¶7            We review orders for legal decision-making, parenting time,
and child support for an abuse of discretion. DeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420,
423 ¶ 9 (App. 2019); In re Marriage of Robinson & Thiel, 201 Ariz. 328, 331 ¶ 5
(App. 2001). “[A]n abuse of discretion ‘is discretion manifestly
unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable
reasons.’” Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 77, 83 ¶ 19 (App.
2005) (citation omitted). We will not disturb a court’s factual findings
supported by substantial evidence. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52 ¶ 16 (App.
2009). We review statutes de novo. Haag v. Steinle, 227 Ariz. 212, 214 ¶ 9
(App. 2011).

                                       3
                        LANGHAM v. KREBSBACH
                          Decision of the Court

II.    Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time

¶8             To modify an order for legal decision-making and parenting
time, a court must find there has been a “change of circumstances materially
affecting the welfare of the child” and that the modification is in the child’s
best interests. Backstrand v. Backstrand, 250 Ariz. 339, 343 ¶ 14 (App. 2020)
(citation omitted). The court has broad discretion to decide if there was a
change of circumstances. Id.

¶9             Here, Langham argues the court erred by modifying the
parties’ legal decision-making authority and parenting time, insisting there
was no material change of circumstances to permit such a modification. But
the record does not support Langham’s position. Dr. Branton testified that
Krebsbach’s mental health had improved and that she had been complying,
at least in part, with the mental health treatment ordered. Additionally, the
court found Krebsbach has had successful parenting time with Charles,
who has become well-adjusted in her home and has developed a
relationship with her daughters. As part of the analysis, the court also
weighed Krebsbach’s level of compliance with the earlier orders. Thus,
substantial evidence of a material change in circumstances exists to support
the court’s finding of a substantial change in circumstances and a
modification would be in Charles’s best interests. See id.

¶10            Based on the findings, the court then properly considered the
A.R.S. § 25-403 factors and found awarding joint legal decision-making and
increasing Krebsbach’s unsupervised parenting time was in Charles’s best
interests. At bottom, Langham asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we
will not do. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284 ¶ 20 (App. 2019).
And contrary to Langham’s arguments, current analysis of the § 25-403
factors—not three-year old superior court orders—must guide the superior
court in deciding whether the modification is presently in a child’s best
interests. Accordingly, the court did not err in modifying its previous order.
Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52 ¶ 16.

¶11            Langham also argues the court erred by refusing to continue
the trial despite Dr. Branton’s alleged failure to provide him with all
Krebsbach’s medical records. But prior to trial, the court denied Langham’s
motion to compel disclosure of the records. Thus, Langham’s argument
fails unless the court’s denial of his motion to compel was also in error.

                                      4
                        LANGHAM v. KREBSBACH
                          Decision of the Court

¶12           We review the court’s ruling on a motion to compel discovery
for an abuse of discretion. See Romley v. Schneider, 202 Ariz. 362, 363 ¶ 5
(App. 2002). And we will not substitute our judgment for the court’s
management of its cases if parties have a reasonable opportunity to present
evidence. See Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 468 ¶¶ 20–21 (App. 2014).

¶13           Here, Langham filed his discovery requests for disclosure of
Krebsbach’s records less than 30 days before trial, in violation of the court’s
discovery cutoff deadline. The same was true of his de facto request to
continue the trial. And as the court observed, the case had been pending for
about a year when Langham had filed his motion, during which time
Langham could have more diligently sought the records. Further, the court
had already advised Langham it was not focused on Krebsbach’s earlier
treatment history but was instead interested in the parties’ current
circumstances and their impact on Charles’s best interests, thereby
signaling that the evidence Langham was seeking to compel was of limited
significance to the court’s analysis.

¶14          Most importantly, the court heard sufficient evidence to
evaluate whether it was in Charles’s best interests to order joint legal
decision-making authority and more parenting time for Krebsbach.
Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the legal
decision-making and parenting time order or by refusing to continue the
evidentiary hearing on the petition to modify.

III.   Child Support Issues Settled

¶15           In a Notice of Settlement filed with this court on March 23,
2023, the parties advised that they had reached an agreement pertaining to
child support. The parties advise that their settlement has mooted
Langham’s arguments on appeal related to (1) inclusion of his Veteran
Administration disability benefits for purposes of calculating child support,
and (2) the equal amount of adjustment the superior court used for Charlie’s
health insurance premiums. Because the parties agree that these two issues
are now moot, we will not address them further.

                                      5
                      LANGHAM v. KREBSBACH
                        Decision of the Court

                          CONCLUSION

¶16          We affirm.

¶17           As the prevailing party on appeal, we award Krebsbach her
costs upon compliance with Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.
Upon consideration and in exercise of our discretion, we decline to award
her request for attorney’s fees.

                          AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                          FILED: AA

                                       6