In re Marriage of Leon-Carpenter

Decision Date05 April 2021
Docket NumberNo. 2 CA-CV 2020-0058-FC,2 CA-CV 2020-0058-FC
PartiesIN RE THE MARRIAGE OF AMANDA ELIZA LEON-CARPENTER, Appellant, and MICHAEL JAMES CARPENTER, Appellee.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals

THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(a)(1), (f).

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County

No. D20133762

The Honorable Deborah Pratte, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

David Lipartito, Tucson

Counsel for Appellant

Pahl & Associates, Tucson

By Danette R. Pahl

Counsel for Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Vásquez authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.

VÁSQUEZ, Chief Judge:

¶1 In this domestic-relations action, Amanda Leon-Carpenter appeals from the trial court's post-decree rulings regarding parenting time and child support, civil contempt, enforcement of the dissolution decree, and attorney fees in favor of Michael Carpenter. She argues that the court erred by (1) modifying parenting time for the parties' two younger children, (2) exceeding its jurisdiction in finding Amanda in civil contempt, (3) awarding attorney fees in favor of Michael, and (4) declining to order Michael to pay Amanda a share of the refund from their 2014 joint income tax return. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶2 We view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's rulings. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, ¶ 5 (1999). Amanda and Michael's marriage was dissolved in 2016. The decree of dissolution included a parenting plan for the parties' three minor children and provided for disposition of the marital residence and the joint filing of their 2013 income tax return.

¶3 In May 2018, Amanda filed a post-decree petition to modify parenting time and child support and to enforce the decree. Amanda asserted that the modification was necessary because of the "continuous disagreement" between the parties over the parenting plan's "structure and terms" and because the oldest child "refus[ed] to have contact with [Michael]." In July 2018, Michael filed a counter-petition, also seeking modification of parenting time and stating that the existing plan had caused "continued animosity" between the parties and that the "frequent exchanges" were not in the children's best interests.

¶4 Michael subsequently filed petitions for contempt against Amanda, arguing she had violated the trial court's order regarding reunification therapy between Michael and the oldest child. He also maintained that Amanda had violated the decree by failing to comply with provisions regarding the marital home.

¶5 After four days of evidentiary hearings, the trial court issued an under-advisement ruling in November 2019. The court modified the parenting plan as to all three children, found Amanda in "indirect civil contempt," ordered child support in a recalculated amount, declined to issue any orders as to the 2014 income tax return, and awarded Michael his attorney fees. Following this ruling, Amanda and Michael each filed motions to alter or amend the judgment, which the court denied as to all relevant parts in a February 2020 ruling.

¶6 Amanda filed a notice of appeal.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(2).

Modification of Parenting Time

¶7 Amanda argues the trial court erred in modifying the parenting time for the two younger children because there was insufficient evidence to show a "material change in circumstances" and there was no "meaningful analysis of abuse" under A.R.S. § 25-403.03(F). We review a court's parenting-time order for an abuse of discretion but review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. See Gonzalez-Gunter v. Gunter, 249 Ariz. 489, ¶ 9 (App. 2020). "We will not set aside the [trial] court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the court to judge the credibility of witnesses." In re Estate of Zaritsky, 198 Ariz. 599, ¶ 5 (App. 2000).

¶8 To modify parenting time, the trial court must first find "a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child." Black v. Black, 114 Ariz. 282, 283 (1977). The court has broad discretion in making this finding. Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 134 Ariz. 177, 179 (1982). "If the court finds such a change in circumstances, it must then determine whether a change in [parenting time] would be in the child's best interests," Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 233 Ariz. 297, ¶ 15 (App. 2013), which includes considering the factors enumerated in A.R.S. § 25-403(A).

¶9 Here, the trial court found a "sufficient basis to modify the parenting plan regarding all the children"—that basis included the confusion surrounding how to handle Michael's military drill weekends and the change in the relationship between the oldest child and Michael. The trial court's findings are supported by the record, despite Amanda's contention to the contrary. The record reflects that the parties had continuing difficulties agreeing how to handle weekends, specifically weekends when Michael had drill. The record also supports the court's finding of a significant change in the relationship between the oldest child and Michael. Although the oldest child has turned eighteen since the court's ruling and is no longer subject to the parenting plan, the court was nonetheless within its discretion to find that the change in the relationship with Michael supported modifying the parenting plan for all the children.

¶10 The trial court then properly assessed each factor under § 25-403(A) to determine whether a modification of parenting time was in the best interests of the children. As required by § 25-403, the court considered and made specific findings as to "all factors that are relevant to the children's physical and emotional well-being." In her opening brief, Amanda points to the court's finding that, before the reunification process, Michael was emotionally abusive toward the oldest child for several years. See § 25-403(A)(1) (court shall consider relationship between parent and child), (A)(8) (court shall consider whether child abuse or domestic violence occurred). But the court additionally stated that the "demeaning, hostile, and threatening" communication between the parties was emotionally abusive and to such an extent that the court was "concerned that the parents might have undiagnosed or untreated mental health issues." See § 25-403(A)(5) (court shall consider "mental and physical health of all individuals involved"). The court noted that this "long-term arguing . . . has negatively affected the children individually and in having a healthy relationship with the parents." See § 25-403(A)(1). It also found that Amanda had "intentionally misled the [c]ourt in denying or downplaying her role in the interference [with] the reunification of" the oldest child withMichael. See § 25-403(A)(7) (court shall consider "[w]hether one parent intentionally misled the court").

¶11 Amanda nevertheless contends that the trial court abused its discretion in weighing "more heavily" certain factors under § 25-403(A) that favored modification, despite the evidence of Michael's "verbal and emotional abuse" of her and the two oldest children. But as to these findings—and its findings for the other § 25-403(A) factors—the court was entitled to assign the weight to the evidence it deemed appropriate, and we do not reweigh the evidence on appeal. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶12 Amanda further contends that certain of the trial court's § 25-403(A) findings were clearly erroneous, specifically "that the Father is more likely to allow the children frequent, meaningful and continual contact with the Mother" and "that the current parenting plan is rather complex and somewhat chaotic and a simple plan would be easier for the children." Both of these findings are supported by the record. Indeed, as to the court's finding about the complicated nature of the prior parenting plan, Amanda petitioned to modify the parenting plan because its "structure and terms" had caused "continuous disagreement."

¶13 The record also supports the court's finding that Amanda interfered with the reunification process between Michael and the oldest child. For example, the reunification counselor testified she was concerned because it "d[id] not appear that [Amanda] support[ed] the process of therapeutic reunification" and Amanda "shared her lack of support" with the oldest child. In turn, she testified that the oldest child "communicated almost the identical choice in the words and in the same incidents with the same tone behind them" as Amanda, which indicated "intentional or unintentional" parent-coaching that could have long-term negative effects on the child. The counselor further testified that it was "very difficult" to schedule appointments through Amanda and that she had to ask Amanda to leave the premises during the sessions following an incident when the oldest child left the session prematurely after texting with Amanda. Thus, because the court's findings are supported by evidence, they are not clearly erroneous.

¶14 Amanda also contends that "there was no meaningful analysis of abuse under" § 25-403.03(F), which requires a specific finding that Michael met his "burden of proving to the court's satisfaction that parenting time will not endanger the child or significantly impair the child's emotional development" if there is a finding of domestic violence. SeeDeLuna v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420, ¶ 1 (App. 2019). Contrary to Amanda's argument, the court was not required to make any specific finding because, in its best-interests analysis under § 25-403(A)(8), the court did not find evidence of domestic violence or child abuse by the parents that would trigger § 25-403.03(F). However, the court did find that the parents were emotionally abusive toward...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT