In re Matthews, 110519 AZAPP1, 1 CA-CV 18-0704 FC
|Docket Nº:||1 CA-CV 18-0704 FC|
|Opinion Judge:||CRUZ, JUDGE|
|Party Name:||In re the Matter of: DUSTIN MATTHEWS, Petitioner/Appellant, v. ROSEANN ROBLES, Respondent/Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Dustin Matthews, Tempe Petitioner/Appellant Roseann Robles, Avondale Respondent/Appellee|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.|
|Case Date:||November 05, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2012-093973 The Honorable Andrew J. Russell, Judge Pro Tempore
Dustin Matthews, Tempe Petitioner/Appellant
Roseann Robles, Avondale Respondent/Appellee
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined.
¶1 Dustin Matthews ("Father") appeals from the superior court's final judgment entered on October 16, 2018. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Father and Roseann Robles ("Mother") are the biological parents of D.M., born in 2011. The superior court entered an order in December 2013, granting the parties joint legal decision-making authority over D.M., setting a parenting-time schedule, and ordering Mother to pay Father $39.46 in monthly child support.
¶3 Father filed a petition to modify legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support in August 2016. The court issued a child support order in February 2017, that increased Mother's child support obligation to $47.05. Further, the court issued an order that granted the parties joint legal decision-making authority and equal parenting time. The court also found a change in circumstances because Mother had moved from Tempe to Avondale, while Father remained in Tempe. Due to the new distance between the parties' residences, the court ordered that the child attend a school equidistance between the parties' homes. D.M. was due to start kindergarten around this time, and the parties agreed he should attend Kenilworth Elementary School in Phoenix via open enrollment.
¶4 On March 29, 2017, Father filed a petition to modify the superior court's child support order, arguing there had been a change in his childcare expenses, a change in his income, and that the court incorrectly found that he received additional income in the form of recurring gifts from family members. Father's petition was denied in May 2017 and he appealed. However, before disposition of the appeal, on February 22, 2018, Father filed a subsequent petition to modify the child support order.
¶5 Pursuant to the February 2017 child support order, if Mother was current on her child support payments as of December 31, 2017, Mother could claim D.M. on her 2017 tax returns. Although the child support order required that payments be made via the Child Support Clearinghouse, Mother made her payments to Father directly between March and December of 2017, by depositing the ordered amount into his bank account. At the hearing, Father claimed these payments were intended as gifts and that Mother was not current on her child support obligation. Mother claimed she could not pay via the Child Support Clearinghouse as ordered, because the court failed to process the income withholding order properly. Father claimed the child as his dependent for tax year 2017. On March 1, 2018, Mother filed a motion to enforce the tax provision of the child support order.
¶6 Issues then arose regarding decisions involving D.M/s education. As a result of D.M.s severe behavioral issues, he was expelled from Kenilworth Elementary after about a week of enrollment. Father and Mother were unable to agree on where to send D.M. for kindergarten after his expulsion. Kenilworth school officials suggested that the parents enroll D.M. in a home district school instead of participating in open enrollment, as the home district school could not expel D.M. for his behavioral issues and would instead be required to provide him services. Neither parent would agree to enroll the child in the home district of the other. On August...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP