Cited by

¶ 14 (App. 2012) (applying the collateral consequences exception to mootness in the context of an expired order of protection).

¶ 6 (App. 2024) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2012)).

We defer to the superior court’s determination that Wife’s testimony about the confrontation was more credible than Husband’ ¶ 17 (App. 4 PINEDA v. CAMPOS Decision of the Court 2012).

¶12 We may exercise discretion and consider an appeal that has become moot when it presents an issue “of great public importance or one capable of repetition yet evading review.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

¶7 Generally, “we will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.” ¶ 5 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 8 (App. 2011)).

¶ 5 (App. 2012) (stating appeals are generally dismissed "as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties"); In re Matter of Salcido v. Hamilton, 1 CA-CV 23-0584 FC, 2024 WL 2933350, at *3, ¶ 18 (Ariz. App. June 11, 2024) (mem.

“A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice and to overcome this presumption, a party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the trial judge was, in fact, biased.” –20, ¶ 19 (App. 2012).

DISCUSSION ¶5 Mother argues the superior court applied the wrong standard of proof when upholding the order of protection.1 We review the decision to continue an order of protection for an abuse of discretion, which may include “an error of law [committed] in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 16 (App. 2012); ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

¶ 5 (App. 2012) (A moot appeal is one where the appellate court’s action will not affect the parties.).

Co., 4 Ariz. App. at 285); ¶ 4 n.3 (App. 2014) ("In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to treat her failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error."); ¶ 4 n.1 (App. 2012) (noting we are "not required" to treat failure to file an answering brief as confession of reversible error); McDowell Mountain Ranch Cmty.

¶¶ 10-12 (App. 2012) (orders of protection are relevant to subsequent orders of protection and child custody disputes, require registration in central repository, and cause “reputational harm and stigma” to defendant).

¶12 We generally do not consider moot questions.3 ¶ 5 (App. 2012).

“Typically, that exception is applicable when, because of time constraints, an issue that is capable of recurring cannot be decided by the appellate court.” ¶ 7 (App. 2012).