Cited by

–73, ¶¶ 45-47 (App. 2008).

-71 ¶¶ 39-40 (App. 2008); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 37 cmt.

to second-guess the credibility determinations of the judge who had the opportunity to evaluate the witnesses’ demeanor and make informed credibility determinations.” ¶ 40 (App. 2008).

(App. 9 CELAYA v. RIVERO QUINTEROS Opinion of the Court 2008).

¶ 40 (App. 2008) (“[I]t is not the function of this court .

¶ 40 (App. 2008) (“[I]t is not the function of this court to reweigh the facts or to second-guess the credibility determinations of the judge who had the opportunity to evaluate the witnesses’ demeanor and make informed credibility determinations.”).

¶ 42 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 3 (App. 2006)).

¶ 22 The trial court made detailed findings clearly supported by the evidence, 6 , and viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the court’s ruling, see Johnson, 131 Ariz. at 44 , 638 P.2d at 711 , we conclude Grandparents demonstrated that Friedman’s decision to bar them from visitation was not in the children’s best interests, see McGover

–67, ¶ 19 (App. 2008) (as amended).

DISCUSSION ¶15 We apply a de novo standard of review to the trial court’s legal conclusions, ¶ 13, MULCAIRE v. MONGINI/WALLACE Decision of the Court 863, 868 (App. 2008), and we accept the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, ¶ 5, 12 P.3d

-76, ¶ 66, -79 (App. 2008).

Unless expressly provided for by statute, “there is no right to a jury trial on statutory claims that did not exist at common law prior to statehood.” ¶ 45