Court Opinion

ID: 9940885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 17:03:01.627611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:00.243028
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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

              ELIZABETH ARCHULETA, Petitioner/Appellee,

                                        v.

                ABRAHAM VARGAS, Respondent/Appellant.

                             No. 1 CA-CV 23-0068
                               FILED 2-15-2024

          Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                         No. FC2021-093920
          The Honorable Harriet M. Bernick, Judge Pro Tempore

                                  AFFIRMED

                                   COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Mesa
By Emily M. Stokes
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Abraham Vargas, Kingman
Respondent/Appellant
                         ARCHULETA v. VARGAS
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael S. Catlett joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1           Abraham Vargas ("Father") appeals the superior court's order
denying his motion to redetermine paternity as to K.V. ("Child"). For the
following reasons, we affirm.

             FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2         In March 2019, Elizabeth Archuleta ("Mother") gave birth to
Child. Three days after Child's birth, Father and Mother signed an
acknowledgment of paternity.

¶3             In August 2021, the State filed a petition to establish Father's
child support obligation, providing "paternity has been determined" under
A.R.S. §§ 25-809, 25-812, and 25-815. The court ordered Mother and Father
to complete a parenting class and attend a settlement conference. The court
later set a pre-hearing conference and an establishment hearing for
November 2021. During the pre-hearing conference, Father agreed to pay
child support. Following the hearing, the court determined Father is the
"natural father" of Child, established Father's child support obligation, and
issued an appealable order under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure
("Rule") 78(c). Father did not appeal. Ten months later, the court reduced
Father's child support obligation to zero due to his incarceration.

¶4            In November 2022, Father moved the court to order genetic
testing and to make a new paternity determination as to Child. The State
argued that Father's motion should be denied because Father voluntarily
signed an acknowledgment of paternity after Child's birth and failed to
meet the timing requirements under Rule 85(c). The court denied Father's
motion, and he timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S.
§ 12-2101(A)(2).

                               DISCUSSION

¶5          Father argues that the court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to order genetic testing and redetermine paternity. "We

                                      2
                         ARCHULETA v. VARGAS
                           Decision of the Court

generally review the denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Rule
85 for an abuse of discretion," but we consider de novo "the court's
conclusions of law." Johnson v. Edelstein, 252 Ariz. 230, 233, ¶ 12 (App. 2021).

¶6            Father asserts that Rule 85(c) allows a parent to challenge an
acknowledgment of paternity in "this state at any time after the sixty day[]
time period." See A.R.S. § 25-812(E) (providing for a challenge to a paternity
acknowledgment after sixty days "only on the basis of fraud, duress or
material mistake of fact"). But because Father signed the acknowledgment
of paternity in March 2019, and did not challenge paternity during the
subsequent child-support litigation, his November 2022 motion is barred
by the doctrine of claim preclusion. See Pettit v. Pettit, 218 Ariz. 529, 533,
¶ 10 (App. 2008) (precluding the father from litigating paternity after failing
to do so in a prior proceeding). Claim preclusion applies "when a former
judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction
and the matter now in issue between the same parties or their privities was,
or might have been, determined in the former action." In re Marriage of
Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403, 406, ¶ 6 (App. 2011).

¶7            In the context of child support and paternity issues, claim
preclusion covers "not only upon facts actually litigated but also upon those
points which might have been litigated." Pettit, 218 Ariz. at 533, ¶ 10
(quoting Gilbert v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 155 Ariz. 169, 174 (App. 1987)). In
Pettit, we found that claim preclusion applied because the father "could
have contested Mother's claim for child support . . . by denying paternity
and requesting that the court order blood testing . . . to determine whether
he is the biological father . . . ." Id. Claim preclusion also applies here—
Father could have challenged paternity during the 2021 child-support
proceedings, and he is precluded from doing so now. The court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion.1

¶8            In a list of "question's for disclosure" in his opening brief,
Father raises two issues regarding a motion purportedly filed by Mother
and the signature on Child's birth certificate. But Father fails to develop
any factual or legal basis for these issues in his briefing. See ARCAP
13(a)(7)(A) (requiring appellants to provide "citations of legal authorities
and appropriate references to the portions of the record" on which they rely
to support their arguments). An appellant who fails to comply with
ARCAP 13 "waive[s] issues and arguments 'not supported by adequate

1      "Although the doctrine of claim preclusion was not relied on by the
family court in denying Father's requests, we will affirm the court's ruling
on any legal theory supported by the record." Pettit, 218 Ariz. at 531, ¶ 4.

                                       3
                        ARCHULETA v. VARGAS
                          Decision of the Court

explanation, citations to the record, or authority.'" Ramos v. Nichols, 252
Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 8 (App. 2022) (quoting In re Aubuchon, 233 Ariz. 62, 64–65,
¶ 6 (2013)). "Courts hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same
standards as attorneys and do not afford them special leniency." Id. Thus,
these issues are waived.

                              CONCLUSION

¶9           We affirm.

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

                                        4