Court Opinion

ID: 9961411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 17:02:21.179343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:42.959577
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

              KELLY ELIZABETH HAGAN, Petitioner/Appellee,

                                         v.

                   JOSHUA PRYOR, Respondent/Appellant.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 23-0656 FC
                                 FILED 4-18-2024

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                           No. FC2019-070326
                            No. FC2019-072093
                              (Consolidated)
                  The Honorable Stasy D. Avelar, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

Kelly Elizabeth Hagan, Buckeye, AZ
Petitioner/Appellee

Joshua Pryor, St. Augustine, FL
Respondent/Appellant
                           HAGAN v. PRYOR
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1          Joshua Pryor (“Father”) challenges the superior court’s ruling
denying his request to relocate his three children with Kelly Elizabeth
Hagan (“Mother”) to Florida. For the following reasons, we affirm.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            Mother petitioned to dissolve the parties’ marriage in 2019.
Both parties lived in Arizona at that time. In May 2020, the superior court
entered a consent decree under which the parties received joint legal
decision-making authority and “essentially equal” parenting time with
their three children in common. Approximately one year later, the court
entered modified orders that initially granted Father supervised parenting
time but included opportunities to receive and increase unsupervised
parenting time.

¶3            In April 2023, Father petitioned to modify legal decision-
making authority, parenting time, and child support. He requested sole
legal decision-making authority and that Mother receive only supervised
parenting time, alleging that she and her current husband had committed
domestic violence in front of the children. Father also filed a relocation
request because he intended to move to Florida and wanted to take the
children with him.

¶4            In September 2023, the superior court held an evidentiary
hearing on Father’s petition and relocation request. Father did not provide
a transcript of this evidentiary hearing on appeal. In April 2023, the court
found that Father’s pending move to Florida “would make the current
orders unworkable[.]” It denied his relocation request but granted him
unsupervised parenting time for most school breaks, including summer
break.

¶5          Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 12-2101(A)(1).

                                     2
                             HAGAN v. PRYOR
                             Decision of the Court

                                 DISCUSSION

¶6             Father challenges the superior court’s denial of his relocation
request. Mother did not file an answering brief. While the failure to file an
answering brief usually constitutes a confession of reversible error on
debatable issues, we decline to treat it as such because the children’s best
interests are at issue. See In re Marriage of Dieszi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525, ¶ 2 (App.
2002).

¶7           “Any change in residence outside Arizona is necessarily a
relocation.” Woyton v. Ward, 247 Ariz. 529, 533, ¶ 11 (App. 2019). Father
bears the burden to show relocation is in the children’s best interests. See
Murray v. Murray, 239 Ariz. 174, 176, ¶ 6 (App. 2016).

¶8             In a contested relocation case, “[t]he [superior] court shall
determine whether to allow [a] parent to relocate the child in accordance
with the child’s best interests.” A.R.S. § 25-408(G). The court must consider
all relevant relocation factors, including those outlined in Section 25-408(I).
A.R.S. § 25-408(I); see also Woyton, 247 Ariz. at 532, ¶ 9. The superior court’s
ruling reflects its consideration of these factors. We therefore review it for
an abuse of discretion. Murray, 239 Ariz. at 176, ¶ 5.

¶9             Father asks us to “relook at the findings in this case,”
contending he proved “there is continued frequent domestic violence
between Mother and her husband and child abuse has been committed by
her husband.” He also contends relocation would move the children closer
to “all of their other family members” and that the schools in Florida are
superior to those in Arizona. He cites no record evidence to support any of
these contentions. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(4), (5) (statement of facts
must include “appropriate references to the record”). And he did not
provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing on his petition to modify and
relocation request. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(A) (“The appellant
must order transcripts of superior court proceedings not already in the
official record that the appellant deems necessary for proper consideration
of the issues on appeal.”). Absent transcripts, we presume the evidence
presented supported the superior court’s findings. Blair v. Burgener, 226
Ariz. 213, 217, ¶ 9 (App. 2010). And based on our review of the available
record evidence—including the superior court’s detailed analysis of the
Section 25-408 relocation factors and the Parenting Conference/Statutory
Report with Relocation Factors prepared by the court-appointed
conciliator—Father has not shown that the court abused its discretion.

                                        3
                    HAGAN v. PRYOR
                    Decision of the Court

                       CONCLUSION

¶10   We affirm.

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

                                 4