Cited by

Finally, Father argues the court’s required the court to issue detailed findings about each statutory factor.

¶ 7 (App. 2003); ¶ 17 (App. 2015).

¶ 7 (App. 2003); ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

¶ 7 (App. 2003); ¶ 5 (App. 2016).

¶ 9 (App. 2020) (as amended); ¶ 7 (App. 2003).

¶¶ 12-13 (App. 2009); Diezsi, 201 Ariz. at 526, ¶ 5; -22, ¶¶ 9-12 (App. 2003) (holding that the court abused its discretion in changing the primary residential parent and altering the parenting time schedule without making required findings on the record in a contested custody case brought under the relocation statute, A.R.S.

¶ 16 (App. 2003) (finding the court abused its discretion when changing the designation of the primary residential parent, when such a change had not been requested).

§ 25-403.B; –22, ¶ 12 (App. 2003).

–22, ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (remanding for further findings where court made detailed findings that “do not favor either parent”).

He maintains that these statutes mandate 50-50 parenting time absent a finding of parental unfitness or endangerment.2 We review an order modifying parenting time for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 7 (App. 2003), but review questions of statutory interpretation de novo, ¶ 7 (App. 2007).

¶ 15 (App. 2013) (); ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (); ¶ 17 (App. 2015) (quoting Canty, 178 Ariz. at 448).