Court Opinion

ID: 9367340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 16:04:32.640658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:59.444871
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

                    JUSTIN FREITAS, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

                   RAYNA GRAHAM, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0446 FC
                                 FILED 1-31-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. FC2021-006749
                 The Honorable Monica Edelstein, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Justin Freitas, Peoria
Petitioner/Appellant

Rayna Graham, Phoenix
Respondent/Appellee
                          FREITAS v. GRAHAM
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding
Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

M c M U R D I E, Judge:

¶1            Justin Freitas (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s
order over legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. He
argues that the superior court erred by not considering his evidence at trial.
We find no error and affirm the judgment.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2            Rayna Graham (“Mother”) and Father have one biological
child in common (“Child”), born in 2016. Mother and Father were not
together as a couple at Child’s birth. Though Father visited the hospital the
day Child was born, following a disagreement at the hospital, Mother and
Father had no further contact until Child was four years old.

¶3            Father petitioned to establish paternity in November 2021,
seeking an order for legal decision-making and parenting time. Mother
responded by seeking sole legal decision-making and child support. At the
pretrial conference, the parents stipulated to paternity, and the court held
an evidentiary hearing to address parenting time, legal decision-making,
and child support.

¶4            After considering “the demeanor of the witnesses, . . . the
exhibits as well as the case history, and . . . the parties’ arguments and
agreements,” the superior court made factual findings and issued its order.
The order addressed the best-interest factors under A.R.S. § 25-403(A) and
“all factors that are relevant to the child’s physical and emotional
well-being.” The court noted that a child’s best interests is the primary
consideration when awarding legal decision-making authority and
parenting time. See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 18 (2003). The court
acknowledged that “absent evidence to the contrary, ‘it is in a child’s best
interest: (1) To have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing
parenting time with both parents[; and] (2) To have both parents participate
in decision making about the child.’” See A.R.S. § 25-103(B).

                                      2
                            FREITAS v. GRAHAM
                             Decision of the Court

¶5             The court noted that Mother and Father could not agree on a
parenting plan. It found that “Joint Legal Decision Making may be
logistically possible in time . . . at present, the Parties have no history of the
meaningful or significant communication necessary to successfully
co-parent.” The court found Mother “has a close and bonded relationship
with Child.” And Child is “close to Mother’s extended family” but “has not
met Father’s family.” The court also noted Mother’s concern that “Child
does not know Father” and her request for a graduated parenting plan to
ensure Child’s best interests.

¶6              The court awarded sole legal decision-making to Mother but
advised her that Father is still entitled “to have access to information and
documentation” related to Child. The court found that Father is entitled to
“reasonable parenting time,” but because “Father has not exercised
significant or consistent Parenting Time with Child at any stage of her life,”
it ordered a “graduated schedule” that would increase Father’s parenting
time through three phases “to permit Father and Child to adjust to
consistent Parenting Time.” Finally, the court adopted the child support
calculation per the Guidelines, obligating Father to pay $574 per month
with another $20 per month until the past support balance of about $4,000
is paid in full.

¶7            Father appealed the order, and we have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

                                DISCUSSION

¶8            We view the facts “in the light most favorable to sustaining
the superior court’s order.” Clark v. Kreamer, 243 Ariz. 272, 275, ¶ 10 (App.
2017). We will affirm the superior court’s fact-finding unless it is clearly
erroneous. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. (“ARFLP”) 82(a)(5). We give “due
regard” to the court’s witness credibility assessments. Id.

¶9               First, Father argues that we should reverse the superior
court’s order for child support because “[his] financial situation was not up
to date at the time the ruling on child support was made.” He claims that
“[d]espite . . . having mailed the evidence and placing evidence in collection
box,” he “was never allowed or asked to display” evidence of a recent
vehicle purchase with a $390 monthly payment.

¶10          But no matter if the superior court considered the vehicle
expense (for which Father provides no evidence), any such expense is not
relevant to determining child support. See A.R.S. § 25-320 app.
(“Guidelines”) § I.C.2–3 (“The child support obligation has priority over all

                                        3
                            FREITAS v. GRAHAM
                             Decision of the Court

other financial obligations. . . . Non-support financial obligations generally
do not affect the child support obligation except as provided in these
Guidelines.”); see also A.R.S. § 25-320 (2021) (“The child support obligation
has priority over all other financial obligations; the existence of
non-support-related financial obligations is generally not a reason for
deviating from the guidelines.”). Father’s vehicle expense is not an
exception, and even if considered, it would not decrease his child support
obligations.

¶11           Father also argues that the child support order is unjust
because he has had another child, born after the ruling, whose hospital
expenses are “yet to be seen.” He identifies that “the mother of this child
will be on maternity leave for three months” and that he will “have to
support the family on a single income.” But Father provides no evidence
that the superior court did not consider these facts. On the contrary, the
superior court was aware of the anticipated expense, as it found that
“Father lives with his girlfriend and they are expecting a baby.”

¶12           Father suggests that his expenses were unforeseeable because
the new “child was admitted into the NICU.” But Father admits that he has
no evidence of these expenses, as they are “yet to be seen.” We will not
reverse a valid child support order upon allegations of changes that
occurred after the order was issued. See Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5
(1999) (“The decision to modify an award of child support rests within the
sound discretion of the trial court.”). And Father is not without remedy. If
he believes that his circumstances have changed after the birth of his new
child, he can move to modify the order. See Guidelines § XIV.

¶13           Father claims that “[M]other did not file her Affidavit of
Financial Statement on time” and that “the court granted her time to file
after the court hearing.” He argues that this was improper because it
permitted Mother to have the “most updated information,” while Father’s
affidavit was not similarly up-to-date. But Father fails to provide evidence
that he requested the court’s permission to update his financial information,
if necessary. We note that the trial transcripts are not in the record on
appeal. And it is the appellant’s responsibility to include in the record
transcripts or other documents necessary to resolve appellate issues.
ARCAP 11(b), (c); State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 30,
¶ 16 (App. 2003). Because we do not have trial transcripts or other
documents, we must assume the missing record supports the superior
court’s findings about child support. See Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 572,
¶ 33 (App. 2009).

                                        4
                          FREITAS v. GRAHAM
                           Decision of the Court

¶14           Finally, Father claims that “[t]he amount of Parenting time is
not sufficient.” He argues that Child “should be allowed to spend more
time with [her new sibling] . . . so that they may develop a healthy
relationship.” But the superior court considered Child’s relationship with
Father’s family when assessing her best interests. Father gives no evidence
to support a claim that the superior court’s evaluation of Child’s best
interests was improper. We will not set aside the superior court’s findings
unless they are clearly erroneous. See ARFLP 82(a)(5). Father claims that
Mother had “previously agreed to a 50/50 parenting time plan.” He
provides no documentary evidence of the alleged text message agreement.
The parties documented, and the superior court found, that Mother and
Father did not agree on a parenting plan.

¶15         We find no error in the superior court’s order for legal
decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

                               CONCLUSION

¶16          We affirm.

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

                                         5