Decormier v. Cormier

• Decision Date: 29 December 2022
• Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 21-0604 FC
• Parties: In re the Matter of: EVELYN DECORMIER, Petitioner/Appellee, v. WILLIAM CORMIER, Respondent/Appellant.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

In re the Matter of: EVELYN DECORMIER, Petitioner/Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM CORMIER, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 21-0604 FC

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

December 29, 2022

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2017-004503 The Honorable Kerstin G. LeMaire, Judge

Cordell Law, LLP, Scottsdale By Kristina L. Cervone Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Daniel A. Rodriguez Law, Phoenix By Daniel Alejandro Rodriguez Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Udall Shumway, PLC, Mesa By Steven H. Everts Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

1

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Peter B. Swann ^[1] joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

CRUZ, JUDGE

¶1 William Cormier ("Father") appeals orders of legal decision- making and parenting time regarding his two minor daughters, R.C., born in 2006, and E.C., born in 2007 ("the children"). He also appeals the superior court's denial of his motion for change of judge and the court's order finding him in contempt for failing to pay child support arrearages. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the superior court's orders. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 283, ¶ 14 (App. 2019).

¶3 Evelyn DeCormier ("Mother") and Father were married and lived in Arizona when the children were born. When the children were young, Father and Mother moved with them to the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"). While living in the UAE, Father and Mother divorced, and Mother later moved with the children to Arizona without Father's consent. Father, who had lost his employment in the UAE, moved to Massachusetts shortly thereafter.

2

¶4 In 2017, Mother domesticated the UAE divorce decree and initiated legal decision-making and parenting time proceedings in Maricopa County Superior Court. Each party sought to be the children's primary residential parent-Father in Massachusetts and Mother in New Zealand. The superior court appointed a court-appointed advisor for the children, who interviewed the parties, the children, and Mother's significant other and issued a court report in January 2019.

¶5 After an evidentiary hearing in May 2019, the superior court ordered joint legal decision-making authority with Mother having final authority, designated Mother primary residential parent in New Zealand, and awarded Father parenting time during school breaks. The court considered the children's best interests based on the factors in A.R.S. §§ 25-403, -403.01, and -403.03, but did not consider the relocation-specific factors identified in A.R.S. § 25-408(I). In addition, the court entered a judgment against Father for child support arrearages. Mother moved to New Zealand with the children in August 2019.

¶6 Father appealed, and in June 2020, this court reversed the relocation, legal decision-making, and parenting time orders. DeCormier v. Cormier, 1 CA-CV 19-0568 FC, 2020 WL 3526673 (Ariz. App. June 30, 2020) (mem. decision). We directed the court to reconsider those issues on remand, and ordered that the court "in its discretion, may resolve those issues on the existing record, or it may order supplemental briefing and may take additional evidence to address the relocation-specific best interest factors identified in subsection 25-408(I). See A.R.S. §§ 25-403, -403.01, and -408." DeCormier, 1 CA-CV 19-0568 FC, at *3, ¶ 15. We affirmed the court's order for child support arrearages and left in place the orders regarding legal decision-making and parenting time pending resolution on remand. Id. at *4-5, ¶¶ 25-27, 29. We noted because both parties sought to relocate the children from Arizona, each bore the burden of proof under A.R.S. § 25-408(G). Id. at *2, ¶ 14.

¶7 On remand, Father requested an evidentiary hearing and in the month before the hearing filed a motion requesting Judge LeMaire to recuse herself pursuant to Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure ("ARFLP") 6(f) (in actions remanded from an appellate court the right to a change of judge is renewed if the appellate court requires a new trial or contested hearing and the party seeking a change of judge has not previously exercised the party's right to a change of judge). Judge Cohen denied the motion because ARFLP 6 had been suspended by Arizona Supreme Court administrative order AO2020-197, which limited certain court operations during the pandemic.

3

¶8 The same day Judge Cohen's ruling was filed, Father requested Judge LeMaire be removed for cause. Judge Cohen found Father had not made a showing that Judge LeMaire was biased or prejudiced against Father and denied the motion.

¶9 The superior court held a four-day evidentiary hearing in May 2021. The court issued findings under A.R.S. §§ 25-403 and -408 and adopted its findings from the July 2019 order, "unless [those findings were] modified" by the court's new order. The superior court found Mother met her burden to show that relocation to New Zealand was in the children's best interests. The court also found Father in contempt for non-payment of child support. Father timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2) over all issues except contempt. See infra ¶¶ 10-12.

DISCUSSION

I. Child Support/Contempt

¶10 In its 2019 order, the superior court granted Mother a child support arrearage judgment against Father in the amount of $74,049.96. The court ordered Father to pay $500 per month towards the arrearages in addition to monthly child support of $500 per month. Father appealed, arguing the superior court abused its discretion in entering the judgment for child support arrearages because it erroneously determined he had made no court-ordered payments. DeCormier, 1 CA-CV 19-0568 FC, at *4, ¶¶ 25-26. Father argued he had made "several" support payments and that Mother "may have also received some money for support when she closed a joint bank account." Id. We affirmed in our 2020 decision, noting there was conflicting testimony and Mother's testimony supported the court's determination that Father had not paid any court-ordered child support. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27.

¶11 In December 2020, Mother petitioned the superior court to find Father in contempt for failing to pay child support arrearages. After a contempt hearing consolidated with the 2021 relocation trial, the superior court found Father in contempt of court for refusing to pay his past due child support. The court did not enter another judgment for child support arrearages, stating that the court...