Cited by

¶ 6 (App. 2025) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2009)).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the trial court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).

¶ 10 (App. 2022); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-weighing conflicting evidence” or judging “the credibility of the witnesses.”).

¶ 11 (“In a contested custody case, the court must make specific findings on the record regarding all relevant factors and the reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the children.”) (citation modified).

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

Id.; ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the trial court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).

A court abuses its discretion when: (1) the record lacks competent evidence to support its decision, ¶ 19 (App. 2009), or (2) “it misapplies the law or predicates its decision on incorrect legal principles,” ¶ 13 (App. 2019) (cleaned up).

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

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the trial court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).

¶ 11 (App. 2010); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 9 (App. 2019); ¶ 19 (App. 2009).

¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

We review a superior court’s parenting time order for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), and will affirm if the court’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

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

DeLuna, 247 Ariz. at 423, ¶ 9; ¶ 19 (App. 2009).

¶ 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).