Cited by

§ 25-403(A), ¶ 11 (App. 2009), and make "specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the child," A.R.S.

ke, ¶ 10 (2003); 3 As an additional sanction, the superior court referred Bruno to the State Bar of Arizona “for appropriate disciplinary action.” 8 BERG, et al. v. WEISS & MOY, ¶ 19 (App. 2011); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (deferring to the superior court’s credibility determinations).

ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review and Applicable Law ¶21 We will affirm if substantial evidence supports the family court’s decision, ¶ 16 (App. 2009), and will not substitute our opinion for that of the family court unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion

¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

Abuse of discretion exists “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); Denise R. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

¶ 16 (App. 2009); (the superior court has broad discretion to determine parenting time because it is in the best position to determine the parenting measures that are in a child’s best interests).

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

Vincent, 238 Ariz. at 155, ¶ 17 ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

¶ 5 (App. 2016); ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“We must give due regard to the .

An abuse of discretion occurs “when the record is ‘devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,’ or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

¶ 16 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

§ 25-403(B); ¶ 11 (App. 2009).

¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2015) ( ¶¶ 16, 19 (App. 2009), and Goats v. A. J. Bayless Mkts., Inc., ).