Ades v. Oscar, 2004 WL 2712929, __ P.3d
(Ct. App., Div. 2, 2004) (PDF 164 KB)
The Department of Economic Security (DES) filed a motion to terminate father's parental rights to his two children. The Court of Appeals held that evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court's finding that termination of father's parental rights was contrary to the best interests of the children.

Birt v. Birt, 208 Ariz. 546, 96 P.3d 544
(Ct. App., Div. 1 2004) (PDF 345 KB)
Former wife moved to set aside dissolution decree when former husband filed bankruptcy shortly after entry of decree. The Superior Court denied motion. Former wife appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) filing of bankruptcy was not newly discovered evidence under civil procedure rule which would justify setting aside decree; (2) decree had no prospective enforcement, and thus setting aside decree was not justified by inequitable prospective enforcement under rule; but (3) setting aside decree was justified by provision of rule which applied when substantial injustice outweighed commitment to finality of judgments; and (4) former wife was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Downs v. Scheffler, 206 Ariz. 496, 80 P.3d 775, 80 P.3d 775 (Ct. App., Div. 1, 2003) (PDF 217 KB)
Paternal grandmother petitioned for custody of 11-year-old child, who had resided with grandmother as appointed guardian for most of her life, although mother retained legal custody. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) findings of fact were required as to child's best interests; (2) grandmother was entitled to cross-examine conciliation services evaluator regarding her best interests conclusion; and (3) grandmother was entitled to consideration of her alternative request for visitation.

Hayes v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 67 P.3d 695 (Sup. Ct., 2002) (PDF 184 KB)
Mother moved for reconsideration of sanctions imposed on her for failure to comply with court order appointing specific therapist in child custody dispute. The Superior Court denied motion. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court held that: (1) trial court's imposition of monetary sanctions for mother's failure to follow order was within discretion of court, but (2) testimony and notes of child's therapist could not be excluded from consideration both at trial and by custody evaluator as sanction.

Holder v. Holder, 03-35595 (9th Cir., 2004) (PDF 61 KB)
The Ninth Circuit rendered a decision on a question of first impression, i.e., whether a family’s short-term residence on a foreign country’s American military base renders that country the children’s “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In the Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 38 P.3d 1189
(Ct. App., Div. 2, 2002) (PDF 138 KB)
Father filed post-dissolution petition against mother for change of custody. The Superior entered order denying father's petition, and father appealed. The Court of Appeals held that (1) trial court was required to make specific findings of fact on statutory "best interests of child" factors; (2) father was not entitled to have trial court apply rebuttable presumption concerning mother's drug conviction; and (3) mother's drug conviction entered two months after father filed petition was relevant factor for court to consider in determining the best interests of child.

Minh T. v. ADES, 202 Ariz. 76, 41 P.3d 614
(Ct. App., Div. 1, 2001) (PDF 147 KB)
Petition to terminate the parental rights of parents accused of murdering their child. The Superior Court granted petition. Parents appealed. The Court of Appeals held that parents had no constitutional right to refuse to participate in reunification services, and thus, parental rights were properly terminated.

Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418, 79 P.3d 667
(Ct. Apps., Div. 1., 2004) (PDF 176 KB)
Ex-husband, who shared joint legal custody of child with ex-wife, petitioned to prevent ex-wife, the primary residential parent, from relocating child with her to Wyoming where she was planning to remarry. The Superior Court granted the petition and designated ex-husband as the primary residential parent, and denied ex-wife's motions for relief from order and for new trial without comment. Ex-wife appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) case was a contested custody case, even though brought under child relocation statute, thus requiring specific findings on the record; (2) trial court's order did not comply with statutory requirement of specific findings on the record; (3) trial court abused its discretion in transferring physical custody from ex-wife to ex-husband; (4) alleged procedural irregularities did not warrant new relocation hearing; and (5) trial court did not give adequate consideration to ex-husband's marital engagement.

Riepe v. Riepe, 208 Ariz. 90, 91 P.3d 312
(Ct. App., Div. 1., 2004) (PDF 764 KB)
Widowed step-mother petitioned for statutory in loco parentis visitation with child. The Superior Court denied petition, and step-mother appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) step-mother was not required to prove that her relationship with child was same as or superior to child's relationship with his natural mother, and (2) trial court's application of incorrect standard of proof required remand to permit trial court to consider whether child viewed step-mother as a parent, and whether step-mother and child had formed a meaningful parental relationship enduring for a substantial period of time.

Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, Civ. No. 04-1656
(5th Cir., 12/15/04) (PDF 58 KB)

Father sought prompt return of his children to Australia, their country of habitual residence.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to render decision.

Thomas v. Thomas, 203 Ariz. 34, 49 P.3d 306
(Ct. App., Div. 1, 2002) (PDF 142 KB)
Adoptive mother appealed order of the Superior Court which awarded joint custody of minor child to her former domestic partner. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) adoptive mother was not estopped from contesting jurisdiction; (2) court had jurisdiction; and (3) court abused its discretion in awarding joint custody.

Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 202 Ariz. 201, 42 P.3d 1166
(Sup. Ct.., 2002) (PDF 291 KB)
Mother filed for divorce and custody of child. Father filed for divorce in Oklahoma. After conferring with the Oklahoma court, the Superior Court dismissed the action on grounds that Oklahoma was child's home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Mother filed petition for special action. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) in a matter of first impression, Oklahoma was the home state as last state child resided for six consecutive months within six months of mother filing divorce petition; (2) best interests of the child was not a proper factor for consideration in jurisdictional analysis; and (3) first-in-time filing could not defeat jurisdiction of Oklahoma as the "home state."

Widoff v. Wiens, 202 Ariz. 383, 45 P.3d 1232
(Ct. App., Div. 1, 2002) (PDF 166 KB)
Mother brought an action against two guardian ad litems, which alleged that the guardian ad litems for her daughter failed to adequately perform their duties in violation of mother's civil rights. The Superior Court granted the guardian ad litems' motion to dismiss the complaint. Mother appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) guardian ad litem appointed by the court was entitled to judicial immunity, and (2) guardian ad litem who was not appointed by the trial court, but assisted the court appointed guardian ad litem, was entitled to judicial immunity.

Woodworth v. Woodworth, 202 Ariz. 179, 42 P.3d 610
(Ct. Apps., Div. 1, 2002) (PDF 229 KB) 
Mother, who was child's custodial parent, filed petition for modification of custody in connection with out-of-state move. Father asked for sanctions and attorney's fees in connection with mother's violation of statutory notice provisions. The Superior Court granted the petition to modify, but denied request for sanctions and attorney's fees. Father appealed. As a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that: (1) statute regarding notice of an out-of-state move affecting a parent's custody rights did not mandate imposition of sanctions and attorney fees, and (2) father was not entitled to sanctions.

To view pdf files, please download the free Acrobat® Reader by clicking here.