Court Opinion

ID: 9412785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-01 17:05:59.006555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:31.491359
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  UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

                       TONI LEIER, Petitioner/Appellant,

                                         v.

                     NATHAN WU, Respondent/Appellee.

                            No. 1 CA-CV 22-0778 FC
                               FILED 8-01-2023

            Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
                            No. FC2018-050387
                The Honorable Paula A. Williams, Judge

                                   AFFIRMED

                                    COUNSEL

The Law Office of Charles Brown PLLC, Phoenix
By Charles W. Brown Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant

Singer Pistiner PC, Scottsdale
By Robert S. Singer
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
                              LEIER v. WU
                           Decision of the Court

                      MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1            Toni Leier (Mother) appeals from a post-decree judgment
denying her request to relocate with a minor child shared with Nathan Wu
(Father). Because Mother has shown no error, the judgment is affirmed.

                FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2            In 2019, the superior court resolved Mother’s petition to
establish paternity, legal decision-making authority, parenting time and
child support. The court entered a final decree establishing paternity,
ordering joint legal decision-making authority, and setting a parenting
schedule that graduated to equal parenting time. Starting in 2020, the
parents have shared equal parenting time.

¶3             In 2021, Father learned of Mother’s intent to relocate to
another state and petitioned the court to prevent the child’s relocation. In
her joint pretrial statement, Mother raised issues of relocation, parenting
time, legal decision-making authority and child support. After an
evidentiary hearing, the court issued a final judgment denying relocation.
In its ruling, the court made factual findings pursuant to its obligation to
consider the best interests of the child, noting previous positions taken by
Mother leading to the 2019 decree.

¶4            This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal under
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).

                              DISCUSSION

¶5            Mother argues claim preclusion prevented the court from
relying on positions Mother took leading to the 2019 decree. Issues of law,
like whether claim preclusion applies, are reviewed de novo. Lawrence T. v.
Dep’t of Child Safety, 246 Ariz. 260, 262 ¶ 7 (App. 2019). The denial of an
order preventing relocation, however, is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Murray v. Murray, 239 Ariz. 174, 176 ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

                                     2
                               LEIER v. WU
                            Decision of the Court

¶6            Claim preclusion bars a subsequent claim when a court
renders a final judgment on the merits in a previous action and did or might
have determined the matter raised in the subsequent claim between the
same parties. In re Marriage of Gibbs, 227 Ariz. 403, 406-07 ¶¶ 6-8 (App. 2011)
(citing authority). Here, at the time of the 2019 proceeding leading to the
decree, Mother was not seeking to relocate. Accordingly, the court could
not have determined that issue, meaning claim preclusion does not apply.
Id.

¶7             Moreover, the legal issues of parenting time, legal decision-
making authority, and relocation require the court to consider the child’s
best interests and certain other enumerated factors. A.R.S § 25-403
(parenting time and legal decision-making authority); A.R.S § 25-403.01
(legal decision-making authority); A.R.S. § 25-408(H)-(I) (relocation).
Although the court considered the best interests of the child during the 2019
proceeding when it adjudicated parenting time and legal decision-making
authority, claim preclusion did not prevent the court from again
determining the best interests of the child as required by A.R.S. § 25-408(I)
in the later relocation proceeding.

¶8             During the relocation proceeding, the court held an
evidentiary hearing, considered different evidence, performed a best
interests analysis and made detailed findings of fact required by A.R.S. §§
25-408(I) and 25-403. The court considered whether, under § 25-408(I)(2),
relocation was being made in good faith and not to interfere with or
frustrate the relationship between the child and Father or Father’s right of
access to the child. As part of that analysis, the court noted positions taken
by Mother during the 2019 proceeding, including her position that Father
be limited to supervised parenting time and that she have sole legal
decision-making authority. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-403(A)(6), the court also
considered which parent would be more likely to allow the child frequent
meaningful and continuing contact with the other parent, again noting
Mother’s previous positions.

¶9            Ultimately, the court did not deny Mother’s request to
relocate based on these previous positions. Despite noting Mother’s
previous positions, the court found that the parties were acting in good faith
and would comply with court orders. The court specifically noted that
Mother sought relocation to join her husband, whom she married in 2021,
knowing he was not living in Arizona and that her marriage would create
the relocation issue.

                                      3
                               LEIER v. WU
                            Decision of the Court

¶10            Claim preclusion does not apply, and the court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Mother’s request to relocate with the minor child.

                              CONCLUSION

¶11           The judgment is affirmed. In the exercise of the court’s
discretion, Father’s request for attorneys’ fees is denied. Father is, however,
awarded his taxable costs incurred on appeal, contingent upon his
compliance with ARCAP 21.

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

                                        4