Cited by

¶ 21 (App. 2003) (quoting Ariz. Indep.

§ 25-411(L) in Backstrand; and (2)

See Francine C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 19 (App. 2020) (“[A]n appellate court may infer that the superior court has made whatever additional findings are necessary to sustain its judgment” so long as those findings are reasonably supported by the record and do not conflict with any express findings.); ¶ 13 (App. 2003) (Under the former A.R.S.

See Chapman, 243 Ariz. at 241, ¶ 18; ¶¶ 12–14 (App. 2003).

¶ 17 (App. 2003), in this type of proceeding, analysis of significant detriment and best interests will often overlap.

§ 25-408); ¶ 19 (App. 2003) (holding that the court’s findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for findings under A.R.S.

See, ¶ 14 (App. 2013); ¶ 7 (App. 2003)

¶ 9 (App. 2003) (“[A] custody decision without the specific findings required by § 25-403 is deficient and, as a matter of law, constitutes an abuse of .

702; (explaining that an expert’s opinion and the extent of their knowledge is “fair game during cross-examination”); ¶ 21 (App. 2003) (“Arizona has a long-favored practice of allowing full cross-examination of expert witnesses, including inquiry about the expert’s sources, relations with the hiring party and counsel, possible bias, and prior opinions.” (quoting Ariz. Indep.

§ 25-403(A), (B); ¶¶ 7–8 (App. 2003).

l” by “requir[ing] Arizona courts to give weight to the parent’s visitation decisions.” ¶¶ 12, 15 (App. 2000); –26 ¶¶ 26–27 (App. 1999) (holding pre-Troxel that former § 25-409, permitting grandparent visitation only after finding that it is in child’s best interests, was constitutional); ¶ 25 (App. 2003) (recognizing that “in custody disputes between a fit legal parent and a third person, a parent’s wishes concerning custody are entitled, at a minimum, to special weight as a measure of protecti

§ 25-403.” P.3d 775 (App. 2003).

§ 25-403; 500, ¶¶ 8, 13 (App. 2003).

See Nold, 232 Ariz. at 273, ¶ 14, 304 P.3d at 1096 (finding abuse of discretion where trial court adopted recommendation of custody evaluator but did not present any factual findings to support its conclusion that “no persuasive evidence established sound reasoning for deviating from [the recommendation]”); -01, ¶¶ 15, 19, -80 (App. 2003) (determining findings of fact were insufficient as a matter of law where trial court provided no factual support for its conclusions that grandmother failed to

See Reid, 222 Ariz. at 207, ¶ 12 , 213 P.3d at 356 ; ¶ 19

See Owen, 206 Ariz. at 421-22, ¶ 12 , 79 P.3d at 670-71 (holding the family court abused its discretion by changing a custody arrangement without making findings on the record); ¶ 19 , (same); ¶ 5 , (same).

§ 25-408); ¶ 19 , (holding that the lower court’s findings were insufficient as a matter of law and remanding for the court to make the findings required under A.R.S.

¶25 , 80 P.3d *234 775, 781 (App.2003) (“We recognize the necessity of interpreting § 25-415 in light of constitutional requirements.”); McGovern, 201 Ariz. at 178, ¶ 20 , 33 P.3d at 512 (noting that a trial court must not only apply “the statute as written,” but must also apply procedural and evidentiary safegu

See Owen, 206 Ariz. at 421-22, ¶ 12 , 79 P.3d at 670-71 (holding that the family court abused its discretion in its custody award by not making findings on the record, and subsequently reversing and remanding for additional findings); 503, ¶¶ 19, 34 , 782 (App.2003) (holding the same but also ordering further cross-examination); 527, ¶¶ 5, 11 , 1192 (App.2002) (vacating a custody award based on the lack of findings and remanding for findings).

¶ 30 , (directing an “in camera inquiry in the presence of counsel”); SCI-Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.App.4th 654 , 62 Cal.