Cited by

he prospective advantages and a parent’s motive for requesting or opposing relocation; • the likelihood of a parent’s compliance with parenting time orders; • whether relocation allows a realistic opportunity for parenting time with each parent; • whether relocation enhances the custodial parent’s quality of life.

Wife, in turn, has not filed an answering brief.2 Although we may deem the failure to file an answering brief a confession of error, n.1 (App. 2008), we do not do so here, as we prefer to decide cases on their merits when the interests 2Wife filed a pro se document in August 2023, which we struck because it did not conform to the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure.

¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008) 2 REYNOLDS v. WALKER Decision of the Court ¶5 Wife testified that, besides her SSDI benefits, she earned $100 weekly babysitting her grandkids.

Although we may deem the failure to file an answering brief a confession of error, ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008), we do not do so here, as we prefer to decide 4 MURRELL v. TAYLOR, et al. Decision of the Court cases on their merits when the interests of justice dictate, (App. 1

Although we could regard this failure as a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008), in our discretion, we decline to do so.

Although we could regard this failure as a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008), in our discretion, we decline to do so

Although we could regard this failure as a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008), in our discretion, we decline to do so

Although we could regard this failure as a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008), in our discretion, we decline to do so

Although we could regard this failure as a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008), in our discretion, we decline to do so

¶8 Mother contends § 25-408(A) creates additional jurisdictional requirements beyond those of § 25-1032(A), and Father did not meet those requirements because he resided in Ohio when he filed his petition.

¶ 6, n.1 (App. 2008); see also Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 15(a)(2).

See ARCAP 15(a)(2); n.1, ¶ 6 (App. 2008).

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

See ARCAP 15(a)(2); ¶ 6 n.1 (App. 2008) (citing predecessor rule).

Although we could regard this failure as a confession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); n.1, ¶ 6 (App. 2008), in our discretion, we decline to do so

n.1, ¶ 6, n.1 (App. 2008) (citation omitted).

¶ 7 (App. 2008) ¶6 Arizona statutes pertaining to legal decision-making and parenting time intersect with those pertaining to relocation.

¶ 6, (stating this court can regard failure to file an answering brief as confession of error).

this court addressed how the 100-mile distance in Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-408(A)(2) should be calculated.

(relocation of child can “interfere with the custody or parenting time granted to the other parent”); T.D.

“When a statute is silent regarding an issue ‘we must look beyond the statutory language and consider the statute’s effects and consequences, as well as its spirit and purpose.’ ” ¶ 13 , (quoting Calmat of Ariz., 176 Ariz. at 193 , 859 P.2d at 1326 ).