Cited by

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).

See Owen v. 3 ¶ 9 (App. 2003); Woyton, 247 Ariz. at ¶¶ 8-10.

Best Interests Finding ¶17 Mother argues that the family court erred because it did not specify which factors under A.R.S.

¶ 15 (App. 2013) (); ¶ 16 (App. 2003) 1 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.

§§ 25-403, -408(G), (I); -22, ¶¶ 9-12 (App. 2003) (holding that although A.R.S.

but there, unlike in this case, we were unable to assess whether the superior court focused unduly on one factor to the exclusion of others.

Baker, 237 Ariz. at 116, ¶ 10; ¶ 7 (App. 2003).

¶ 10 (App. 2015); ¶ 7 (App. 2003).

§ 25-403, -22, ¶ 12 (App. 2003) (holding court abused its discretion by modifying custody without making findings on the record); 2) lacks competent evidence supporting its decision, ¶ 5 (1999); or 3) “commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion,” Kohler v. Kohle

See, ¶¶ 22-23 (App. 2013) (remanding upon finding the trial court failed to properly consider father’s engagement and certain related evidence, with instructions to the trial court to give such evidence “full consideration”).

§ 25-408(G), (I) ; Murray v. Murray , , 177, ¶ 9, , 81 (App. 2016) ; Owen v. Blackhawk , , 421, ¶ 9, , 670 (App. 2003).

¶ 5 (App. 2016) ( ¶ 7 (App. 2003), ¶ 7 (App. 2008)).

We review the superior court’s determinations for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 7 (App. 2003), but review alleged constitutional violations de novo, ¶ 42 (2010).

–21, ¶¶ 8–12 (App. 2003).

(“Although our statutes do not require that there be a showing of change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child in order to modify a custody decree, our case law does require such a showing.” ()); (court required to find material change before modifying custody order and parenting time but erred in finding evidence of material change based on mother’s intent to move out of state only if court permitted child to move).

–41, ¶ 43 (App. 2009); ¶ 7 (App. 2003); ¶ 6 (App. 2001).