Cited by

's 3 MCAFEE v. STROTHERS Decision of the Court failure to respond is generally treated as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), unless the case involves a child's best interests, ¶ 18 (2003)

If an appellant raises a debatable issue, an appellee's failure to respond is generally treated as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), unless the case involves a child's best interests, ¶ 18 (2003)

¶ 9 (App. 2014); Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *5 ¶¶ 19–20 (Ariz. App. March 26, 2024) (Morse Jr., J., specially concurring) (mem.

2 MAGILL v. LANN Decision of the Court (1966); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).

¶ 10 (App. 2016) (“The paramount factor a trial court must consider when applying the Guidelines is the best interest of the child.” (citation modified)).

-04 ¶¶ 18-23 (2003) (reversing contempt sanctions that impacted best-interests determination); (declining to find arguments waived where interests of minor children were involved).

¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).

¶ 18 (2003) ("We have repeatedly stressed that the child's best interest is paramount in custody determinations.").

see also Matter of Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653 at *5, ¶ 19 (Ariz. App. Mar.

(“[T]o reverse the decision of the trial court concerning the custody and well being of two minor children because their mother failed or was unable to file an answering brief would not .

Matter of Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *1–5, ¶¶ 5–20 (Ariz. App. Mar.

While we typically treat an appellee’s lack of response as a confession of error, we may decline to do so when a child’s best interests are at issue, ¶ 2 (App. 2002), as is the case here.

¶ 12 (2002) (exercising discretion to address waived arguments); (stating waiver is discretionary where minor children are involved); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child's best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”) (citing cases).

¶ 12 (2002) (exercising discretion to address waived arguments); (declining to find arguments waived where interests of minor children were involved); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”) (collecting cases).

see also Matter of Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *1–5, ¶¶ 5–20 (Ariz. App. Mar.

(stating that when children are involved, a mandatory-confession-of-error rule would not “serve the ends of justice”); ¶ 18 (2003) (citing Hoffman with approval).