SIMON SEZ: Recent Arizona Appellate Court Rulings

Holland v. Holland 1CA-CV24-0459 FC (June, 2025)

To find that placing a child with a legal would be “significantly detrimental” to the child under A.R.S. sect 25-409(A)(2), the court must find that the parent’s continued unsupervised care or exercise of legal decision-making authority over the child would harm the child.

When the court analyzes the A.R.S. sect. 25-403(A) best interests factors, the court does not determine whether they favor the parent or a third party but rather whether they rebut the presumption that the parent should exercise legal decision-making authority, in other words, the court’s inquiry is solely concerned with the parent.

SIMON SEZ: The Court of Appeals held that “significantly detrimental” means that the child will be harmed by the parent’s continued care or exercise of legal decision-making authority over the child. This ruling points out a court must find that the child would be harmed by any amount of time in unsupervised care of the legal parent. The Court of Appeals also held a third party, including a grandparent, cannot oppose a legal parent’s relocation of their child.

Collins v. Collins CA-CV 24-0654 FC (June, 2025)

When a court has already found in an order of protection hearing that a party has committed domestic violence, during the dissolution proceeding the court is not to assess that issue but, based on that finding, determine whether the party has rebutted the statutory presumption against joint legal decision-making and whether granting that party parenting time would endanger the children or significantly impair their emotional development under A.R.S. sect. 25-403.03(F)

SIMON SEZ: The party against whom the order of protection has been issued can only rebut this presumption if the domestic violence finding is that there was an “act” of domestic violence. You cannot rebut if the court finds that there was a significant act of domestic violence or that there is a significant history of domestic violence.

Clark v. Clark CA-CV 24-0609 FC (June, 2025)

Under the Child Support Guidelines when the court attributes income above minimum wage it must explain the reason for its decision.

SIMON SEZ: Under Arizona’s Child Support Guidelines, “if the court attributes income above minimum wage income, the court must explain the reason for its decision.” In this case the trial court attributed extra income to Wife but did not explain how or why it did this. In many cases, one spouse may have been out of the workforce for a period of time during the marriage and/or during the pendency of the divorce. It is critical to present evidence of that spouse’s work history, qualifications and documentation of qualified job opportunities to mitigate the amount of child support and spousal maintenance.

Gilbert v. Gilber 1CA-CV 25-0012 FC (June, 2025)

Modification of Spousal Maintenance, The determination of of whether an income decline constitutes a “substantial and continuing change of circumstances” sufficient to justify a modification is not based on a fixed formula but instead depends on the facts of each case.

SIMON SEZ: Typically, parties settle on an amount and duration of spousal maintenance, agreeing both terms are NOT modifiable. However, if the parties proceed to trial, the amount and duration are modifiable. In this case the Court of Appeals erred by relying in part on speculation as to whether Husband’s income had declined by of the downturn in his employer’s business. The Court also ruled that the trial court improperly considered Husband’s new spouse’s income when such income could not be considered in his ability to pay Wife spousal maintenance. The Appellate Court also rejected Wife’s request that is expressly hold Husband’s 8% income decline did not as a matter of law constitute a “substantial and contiuing” change under A.R.S. sect. 25-327(A). The determination does not depend on “fixed formulas” but on the facts of each particular case.

I hope you enjoyed the second installment of Simon Sez covering recent Arizona Appellate Court Rulings. Stay tuned for more soon.