Cited by

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (noting we will not reweigh conflicting evidence); Miller, 245 Ariz. at 325, ¶ 9.

¶ 19 (App. 2009) (quotation omitted).

The request also is untimely, ARCAP 11(f), and the court denies the request to consider witness credibility, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

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

–53, ¶¶ 20–26 (App. 2009).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (the credibility of witness testimony is for the superior court to determine).

¶ 14 (App. 2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

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

¶ 18 (App. 2015); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

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

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

A court abuses its discretion when: (1) the record is devoid of 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).

The court must “make specific findings on the record as to all relevant factors and the reasons its decision is in the children’s best interests.” ¶ 20 (App. 2009); A.R.S.

¶ 14 (App. 2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 12 (App. 2009); 3 MICHAELS v. SHIMO Decision of the Court ¶ 11 (App. 2009) (noting a court abuses its discretion when it fails to make findings required by the statute).