Cited by

And to the extent that Broadbent asks us to reweigh the evidence bearing on that determination, we won’ ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

Ctr., 259 Ariz. at 190 ¶ 24 ( ¶ 1, 52 ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (reviewing order awarding sole custody of children to mother and allowing her to relocate with children), and ¶ 13 (1999) (reviewing the interpretation of a decedent’s will)).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 18 (App. 2015).

esponsibility and did not object to the community debt at any stage of the proceedings.” Mother adds that Father acknowledged he owed Mother money and that the superior court had “an obligation to equitably divide clearly identified community property.” ¶15 The superior court’s ruling will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting that ruling, ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (citing cases), and this court accepts the superior court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 16 (

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence or redetermining the preponderance of the evidence.”).

A court abuses its discretion if “it commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion or ‘when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

See Gutierrez, 193 Ariz. at 347 ¶ 13; ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

To the extent Father argues the court should have weighed the evidence differently, this court does not reweigh evidence on appeal and gives “due regard to the [superior] court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 27 (App. 2020).

¶ 11 (App. 2009) (noting the superior court is required to consider all relevant factors when deciding child custody).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); see also Aries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc., (“The trial court is not bound to accept as true the uncontradicted testimony of an interested party.”).

(change of circumstances); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (best- interests findings); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (credibility assessments and weighing evidence); ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (child support); ¶ 20 (App. 2016) (attorney’s fees).

¶ 5 (App. 2016); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (appellate court will affirm if “substantial evidence” supports trial court’s ruling).

To the extent that he asserts the superior court should have evaluated the evidence differently at the hearing, this court does not reweigh conflicting evidence on appeal and gives “due regard to the [superior] court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

Engstrom, 243 Ariz. at 471, ¶ 4 ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).