Court Opinion

ID: 9912137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 18:03:00.428988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:23.614115
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

        MIGUEL ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                        v.

              LINDSEY MARIE ATHEY, Respondent/Appellee.

                           No. 1 CA-CV 22-0660 FC
                               FILED 12-21-2023

           Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                          No. FC2011-002285
                 The Honorable Glenn A. Allen, Judge

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Cantor Law Group PLLC, Phoenix
By Nicholas Boca, Amanda Szpakowski
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Schmillen Law Firm PLLC, Scottsdale
By James R. Schmillen, Erica Leavitt
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
                         HERNANDEZ v. ATHEY
                          Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1            Miguel Anthony Hernandez ("Father") appeals from an order
modifying the previous legal decision-making authority and
parenting-time orders1 to Lindsey Marie Athey ("Mother"). Finding no
abuse of discretion, we affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            The parties have one child, born in 2010. In 2013, they agreed
to share joint legal decision-making authority and equal parenting time.
Five years later, the parties filed competing petitions to modify these
orders. The court appointed David Weinstock, Ph.D., to conduct a
comprehensive family evaluation ("CFE").

¶3             While that modification litigation was pending, Mother was
arrested and later pled guilty to extreme driving under the influence
("DUI"). After an evidentiary hearing in September 2020, the superior court
found that changed circumstances warranted a modification of the 2013
custody orders. The court cited Mother's extreme DUI conviction and
found that her "mental health issues, which are the direct cause of her
alcohol abuse, have not been fully addressed." The 2020 order provided for
joint legal decision-making authority with Father having the final say if the
parties could not agree. The order awarded Mother parenting time every
other weekend, one evening a week, and alternating holidays. As relevant
to this appeal, the court required Mother to participate in mental-health
treatment with a master's-level counselor and provide a copy of Dr.
Weinstock's CFE to her counselor. Mother's individual counselor was also

1       Father also appeals the court's award of attorney fees to Mother. We
address that issue in a separate opinion filed simultaneously with this
memorandum decision. See Hernandez v. Athey, 1 CA-CV 22-0660 FC, ---
Ariz. --- (App. Dec. 21, 2023).

                                     2
                         HERNANDEZ v. ATHEY
                          Decision of the Court

ordered to work with her substance-abuse counselor, Daniel Blew, and the
family counselor, Judith Lewis-Thome.

¶4             One year later, Mother petitioned to modify the 2020 order.
Mother asserted the following changed circumstances: (1) she completed
twelve months of mental-health treatment under the terms of the 2020
order, (2) she maintained two years of sobriety, (3) she continued
substance-abuse counseling with Mr. Blew, (4) she participated in
co-parenting therapy with Ms. Lewis-Thome, (5) she completed her DUI
requirements such that she was eligible to remove the interlock from her
car, and (6) the parties could not agree on the appropriate therapy for the
child despite increased behavioral issues. Father responded that Mother's
treatment did not adequately address the mental-health issues identified in
the 2020 order, questioned her sobriety, and disputed the child's need for
therapy.

¶5             After a one-day hearing, the superior court found "a
substantial and continuing change" of circumstances existed and that
Mother sufficiently addressed all the issues raised in the 2020 order. After
considering the best-interests factors in A.R.S. §§ 25-403, -403.03,
and -403.04, the court continued joint legal decision-making authority,
eliminated the provision giving Father final say, and reinstated equal
parenting time. The court also awarded attorney fees to Mother. Although
the order did not specify an amount for the attorney-fees award, the court
certified that its order was appealable under Arizona Rule of Family Law
Procedure ("Rule") 78(b).

¶6            Because the superior court certified the order under Rule
78(b) as "an appealable judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all,
claims," we have jurisdiction to consider the decision-making and
parenting-time orders on appeal under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2). See
Bollermann v. Nowlis, 234 Ariz. 340, 342, ¶ 12 (2014) (stating that rulings on
the merits that include Rule 78(b) language are appealable even if attorney
fees are unresolved).

                               DISCUSSION

¶7            When considering a petition to modify legal decision-making
authority and parenting-time orders, the superior court first considers
"whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the
welfare of the child." Backstrand v. Backstrand, 250 Ariz. 339, 343, ¶ 14 (App.
2020) (quoting Black v. Black, 114 Ariz. 282, 283 (1977)). If the court finds a
change in circumstances, it may then consider whether a modification is in

                                      3
                         HERNANDEZ v. ATHEY
                          Decision of the Court

the child's best interests by applying the factors in A.R.S. § 25-403(A). Id.
The party seeking a modification has the burden of proof. Id. The court has
"broad discretion to decide whether a change of circumstances has
occurred," which we will affirm absent abuse of discretion. Id.

¶8          The superior court found substantial and continuing changed
circumstances and that Mother sufficiently addressed the issues raised in
the 2020 order. Father suggests this finding is insufficient and that the
record as a whole shows the court applied an incorrect standard. We
disagree.

¶9            The 2020 order provided in pertinent part:

       [U]ntil Mother consistently participates in treatment for her
       underlying mental health issues, her risk to relapse . . . is too
       great and renders her a potential risk of harm to the child. It
       is contrary to the child's best interests, therefore, for Mother
       to share equal parenting time with Father until she
       participates in mental health treatment for a period of at least
       12 months.

¶10            Mother presented evidence that she consistently participated
in individual counseling with a master's-level counselor, Ms. DeSerto, who
worked with Mother's substance-abuse and family counselors and did so
for at least 12 months. Ms. DeSerto reviewed the CFE, as required in the
2020 order, and treated Mother for the mental-health issues she identified
in their sessions. Thus, the record supports the court's conclusion that
Mother sufficiently addressed her mental-health issues consistent with the
2020 order.

¶11           According to Father, the 2020 order required Mother to
address each specific mental-health condition mentioned throughout the
2020 order and undergo mental-health testing. He argues Mother did not
receive treatment for all the conditions listed in the 2020 order, specifically
a mood disorder, and therefore she could not have satisfied the
requirements of the 2020 order.2 However, the superior court explained in

2       Mother argues that Father waived this and other arguments because
he failed to cite legal authority as required by Arizona Rule of Civil
Appellate Procedure 13(a)(7). Father's arguments lacking legal authority
are fact-based arguments in which Father asks this court to accept his view
of the evidence. As such, citations to caselaw were not mandatory, and we
find no waiver.

                                      4
                         HERNANDEZ v. ATHEY
                          Decision of the Court

an interim order, that it "will not dictate to the counselor his or her
treatment plan for Mother."

¶12           The 2020 order discusses symptoms and conditions Mother
may have had, as indicated by Dr. Weinstock's psychological testing. To be
sure, the 2020 order refers to Dr. Weinstock's "conclu[sion] that Mother has
a mood disorder and used alcohol to cope with her mental health issues."
But Mother's treating counselor, Ms. DeSerto, did not see evidence of a
mood disorder. The 2020 order did not direct treatment for specific
conditions. Instead, it noted the mental-health concerns identified in the
CFE as part of its order that Mother seek mental-health treatment.

¶13          Ms. DeSerto reviewed the CFE and determined that Mother
sufficiently addressed the mental-health issues she diagnosed.
Additionally, Mother testified that she has made significant progress on
those issues and her overall mental health through her work with Ms.
DeSerto, Mr. Blew, and Ms. Lewis-Thome. That Ms. DeSerto's treatment
did not expressly align with Dr. Weinstock's list of Mother's issues in the
CFE does not negate the evidence of Mother's progress. Although Father
disputed the credibility of Ms. DeSerto's conclusions and Mother's
testimony, the superior court found them persuasive. We do not reweigh
evidence on appeal or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Lehn v.
Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019).

¶14           Contrary to Father's assertion, the superior court did not find
that Mother complied with the 2020 order merely because she attended
counseling for 12 months with a master's-level counselor and provided the
CFE to that counselor. As noted above, the court found that Mother
sufficiently addressed the mental-health issues raised in the 2020 order.

¶15           Father also argues the superior court cited no facts to support
its conclusion that Mother met her burden of showing a change of
circumstances. The controlling statutes, A.R.S. § 25-411(J) and (L), do not
require such a finding to be written or stated on the record. See Hart v. Hart,
220 Ariz. 183, 187, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (holding A.R.S. § 25-411(J) does not
require written findings to restrict parenting time). Therefore, we find no
error.

¶16             Father also challenges the adequacy of the court's findings as
to A.R.S. § 25-403.04 about substance abuse. Father raised this argument
for the first time in his reply brief. Arguments first raised in a reply brief
are generally considered waived, Johnson v. Provoyeur, 245 Ariz. 239, 243, ¶

                                      5
                          HERNANDEZ v. ATHEY
                           Decision of the Court

13 n.5 (App. 2018), but we will consider Father's argument because it relates
to the child's best interests, Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

¶17           Section 25-403.04 applies if the court finds that "a parent has
abused drugs or alcohol or has been convicted of" specified offenses "within
twelve months before the petition . . . [wa]s filed." (Emphasis added.) The court
found no evidence that this section applied. Father cited no evidence in the
record showing Mother abused any substances or had any new convictions
in the applicable timeframe. In fact, Mother testified that she has had no
alcohol since the 2020 order. Thus, this section did not apply, and the court
was not obligated to make any additional findings.

¶18            Father does not adequately challenge the sufficiency of the
other A.R.S. § 25-403(A) best-interests findings. Father argues the evidence
does not support the A.R.S. § 25-403(A)(5) finding that Mother has properly
addressed her mental-health and substance-abuse concerns because "Judge
Allen does not identify a single fact on the record that led to his conclusion
that Mother has properly addressed the issues." But the court does not have
to reference each piece of evidence that supports its ruling. Christy C. v.
Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 214 Ariz. 445, 451–52, ¶ 19 (App. 2007). It must
include "the 'ultimate' facts—that is, those necessary to resolve the disputed
issues." Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 132 (App. 1990). Here, the court
found that Mother was properly addressing her mental-health issues and
was "physically and mentally able to properly care for the child." The
record supports this finding. The court need not detail the evidentiary basis
on which this ultimate fact was based. Christy C., 214 Ariz. at 451–52, ¶ 19.
We find no error. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (noting
the appellate court will affirm the superior court's ruling if substantial
evidence supports it, even if conflicting evidence exists).

                                CONCLUSION

¶19           We affirm the order modifying legal decision-making
authority and parenting time. In the exercise of our discretion, we order
each party to pay their own attorney fees on appeal. See A.R.S. § 25-324(A).
As the successful party on appeal, Mother is entitled to an award of costs
under A.R.S. § 12-342.

                             AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
                             FILED: AA
                                          6