Cited by

¶ 2 (App. 2005); ¶ 9 (App. 2016); ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (“The presence of contrary facts does not render a trial court’s factual determinations clearly erroneous.”).

¶ 5 (1999); ¶ 2 (App. 2005).

¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005); (“We may only consider the matters in the record before us.”).

Kelly, 198 Ariz. at 308, ¶ 5; ¶ 10 (App. 2005).

had stated he planned to live in Flagstaff for a “‘couple months,’ he continue[d] to live in Flagstaff at the time of the [evidentiary] hearing and ha[d] now been living there for the past six months.” 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law that underlies its exercise of discretion.” ¶ 8 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).

The superior court abuses its discretion when it “commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.” ¶ 2 (App. 2005).

Because Kurtz did not provide a transcript of the proceedings, we “presume the record supports the trial court’s rulings.” ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) (); see also ARCAP 11(b)-(c) (stating the appellant is responsible for ensuring “the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal”).

“An abuse of discretion may occur when a trial court commits an error of law in the process of exercising its discretion.” ¶ 2 (App. 2005) ( ¶ 23 (App. 2004)).

§ 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,” ¶ 2 (App. 2005).

The day before trial, Mother filed a separate pretrial statement that was 1 “We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court’s ruling.” ¶ 1 n.1 (App. 2007) ( ¶ 2 (App. 2005)).