Thompson v. Thompson, No. 1 CA-CV 07-0048.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | Norris |
| Citation | 217 Ariz. 524,176 P.3d 722 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 07-0048. |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Roger E. THOMPSON, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Tanya F. THOMPSON, Respondent/Appellee. |
v.
Tanya F. THOMPSON, Respondent/Appellee.
[176 P.3d 723]
Roger E. Thompson, Eagar, Petitioner/Appellant in propria persona.
Tanya F. Thompson, Payson, Respondent/Appellee in propria persona.
NORRIS, Judge.
¶ 1 Under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 25-408(B) (2007), a parent granted joint custody or, parenting time is entitled to at least 60 days advance written notice before the other parent may "[r]elocate the child more than one hundred miles within the state." This appeal requires us to discuss how the 100 miles of A.R.S. § 25-408(B) should be measured. We hold that, under A.R.S. § 25-408(E), if a parent awarded joint custody or parenting time relocates the child with court permission, the miles of that court approved relocation may not be considered when determining whether a subsequent relocation is more than 100 miles within the state. We also hold the 100 mile condition should be measured from the relocating parent's physical location with the child as of the date of the court order or written agreement granting custody or parenting time to both parents.
¶ 2 In September 2004, Petitioner/Appellant Roger Thompson ("Father") petitioned for a legal separation and Respondent/Appellee Tanya F. Thompson ("Mother") responded by asking for a dissolution of marriage. Mother, who then lived in Alpine, Arizona, petitioned the court for temporary care, custody, and control of the couple's three children and asked that Father, who lived approximately 27 miles away in Eagar, Arizona, be awarded temporary visitation. Mother also requested "[t]hat no clause would hinder [her] from moving beyond 25 miles" because she wished to move to Show Low, Arizona, which is approximately 48 miles from Eagar. Father petitioned the court for a temporary order granting him custody of the children, and at the hearing on temporary orders, objected to Mother's request to move to Show Low. In October 2004, the court denied Father's custody request and entered a temporary order granting custody of the children to Mother with visitation to Father. It further ordered "the visitation situation will remain intact until the divorce is final and that does not preclude [Mother] from moving to Show Low."
¶ 3 As authorized by the court in its temporary order, Mother moved from Alpine to Show Low ("first move"), a distance of approximately 73 miles. Although the record does not reveal when Mother made the first move, she did so at some point before May 2005, when the court entered a decree dissolving the parties' marriage. The dissolution decree awarded legal custody of the children to Mother and gave Father "liberal" parenting time. More than a year later, Mother notified the court she intended to move from Show Low to Payson, Arizona ("second move"), a distance of approximately 90 miles, to start a new full-time job. Father objected and argued Mother's move to Payson exceeded 100 miles because Payson is approximately 138 miles from Eagar. Accordingly, he asked the court to enjoin Mother from moving to Payson. A.R.S. § 25-408(D) ("Within thirty days after notice is made [under A.R.S. § 25-408(B)] the nonmoving parent may petition the court to prevent relocation of the child."). The court refused to enjoin Mother's relocation, finding A.R.S. § 25-408 inapplicable because Mother "[wa]s only moving 90 miles away."
¶ 4 Father then moved for a new trial and argued A.R.S. § 25-408(B) required the court to calculate the mileage of Mother's relocation by adding the miles of her first move to those of her second move. He also argued the statute required the court to calculate the 100 miles from his residence in Eagar to her new location in Payson, a distance of approximately 138 miles, not from Mother's location in Show Low.
¶ 5 The court denied the motion. It ruled "[t]he [s]tatute which [Father] seeks to invoke is not triggered by a prospective move of less than 100 miles" because "[a]t the time of the decree, the parties' children resided in Show Low.... [and Mother] thereafter relocated to Payson ... 90 miles away." The court also ruled the second move "was separate and distinct from that associated with the parties' separation in 2004."
¶ 6 Father timely appealed the superior court's rulings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003) and 12-2101(F)(1)-(2) (2003).1
A. Total Mileage of Mother's Moves
¶ 7 On appeal, Father argues A.R.S. § 25-408(B) and (D) were applicable to Mother's move to Payson.2 As he sees the situation, the court should have measured the 100 miles by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archicon, L.C. v. TPI Props., LLC, 1 CA-CV 12-0232
...could consider this a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(c), in the exercise of our discretion, we decline to do so. Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526 n.1, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 722, 724 (App. 2008). 2. "A person who furnishes professional services but who does not hold a valid certificate of......
-
Lewis v. Felmly, 1 CA-CV 12-0350
...not file an answering brief. Although we could regard the failure as a confession of error, we decline to do so, Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526 n.1, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 722, 724 n.1 (App. 2008), and will address the merits of the appeal. Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191, 608 P.2d 329, 3......
-
Baker v. Meyer, No. 2 CA–CV 2014–0107.
...the reduction in parenting time that would result from N. attending an out-of-state boarding school. See generally Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, ¶ 14, 176 P.3d 722, 725 (App.2008) (relocation of child can “interfere with the custody or parenting time granted to the other parent”); T.......
-
Michael v. GFA Wealth Design, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0740
...1. The Vassallos filed no answering brief on appeal. We could consider this a confession of error. Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526, ¶ 6, n.1, 176 P.3d 722, 724 (App. 2008). In an exercise of our discretion, however, we will decide the appeal on its merits. See Gibbons v. Indus. Com......
-
Archicon, L.C. v. TPI Props., LLC, 1 CA-CV 12-0232
...could consider this a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(c), in the exercise of our discretion, we decline to do so. Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526 n.1, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 722, 724 (App. 2008). 2. "A person who furnishes professional services but who does not hold a valid certificate of......
-
Lewis v. Felmly, 1 CA-CV 12-0350
...not file an answering brief. Although we could regard the failure as a confession of error, we decline to do so, Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526 n.1, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 722, 724 n.1 (App. 2008), and will address the merits of the appeal. Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191, 608 P.2d 329, 3......
-
Baker v. Meyer, No. 2 CA–CV 2014–0107.
...the reduction in parenting time that would result from N. attending an out-of-state boarding school. See generally Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, ¶ 14, 176 P.3d 722, 725 (App.2008) (relocation of child can “interfere with the custody or parenting time granted to the other parent”); T.......
-
Michael v. GFA Wealth Design, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0740
...1. The Vassallos filed no answering brief on appeal. We could consider this a confession of error. Thompson v. Thompson, 217 Ariz. 524, 526, ¶ 6, n.1, 176 P.3d 722, 724 (App. 2008). In an exercise of our discretion, however, we will decide the appeal on its merits. See Gibbons v. Indus. Com......