Cited by

“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).

¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

We do not reweigh the evidence and “[w]e must give due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the 4 RECTOR v. STEVENSON Decision of the Court credibility of the witnesses.” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶10 To the extent Father asks that we reweigh the evidence, we may not do so on appeal, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), and realistically cannot do so without a transcript, see Romero v. Sw.

¶ 16 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 13, 580 ¶ 18 (1999)).

¶ 14 (App. 2017); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

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

In conducting our review, we “defer to the [superior] court’s determination of witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give conflicting evidence.” ¶ 13 (App. 1998); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Even though conflicting evidence may exist, we affirm the [superior] court’s ruling if substantial evidence supports it.”).