Cited by

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (noting that the child’s best interests trump the discretionary doctrine of waiver).

The decision to find waiver, however, is discretionary, Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 9 (App. 2018), and because the best interests of a child are at stake, we decline to do so here and will address the merits, ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trump the discretionary doctrine of waiver).

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“[I]f the best interests of the child trump the consequences ordinarily imposed for violations of the rules, then they should not be ignored under the discretionary doctrine of waiver.”).

(change of circumstances); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (best- interests findings); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (credibility assessments and weighing evidence); ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (child support); Murray

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trumps the discretionary doctrine of waiver).

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“[I]f the best interests of the child trump the consequences ordinarily imposed for violations of the rules, then they should not be ignored under the discretionary doctrine of waiver.”).

§ 25-403(B); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (explaining court must make specific findings stating why its decision is in the child's best interests).

¶ 9 (App. 2013); ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (noting that the child’s best interests trump the discretionary doctrine of waiver).

DISCUSSION ¶5 Mother did not file an answering brief, which we could interpret as a confession of error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), but we reach the merits in the exercise of our discretion because the best interests of three children stand in the balance, ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trumps the discretionary doctrine of waiver).

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“[F]ailure to raise the issues with the family court does not prevent [this Court] from considering [an] argument that the family court erred by failing to make the required statutory findings.”).

¶ 9 (App. 2013); ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trumps the discretionary doctrine of waiver).

.” ¶ 8 (App. 2020) ( ¶ 10 (App. 2013)).

-74, ¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2013) (quotation omitted) (vacating and remanding parenting time order because family court “abdicated its responsibility” to decide contested issues by adopting custody evaluator’s recommendation as the presumptive outcome).

¶ 3 (App. 2002) (“We will not disturb a trial court’s decision on child custody absent a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (“On appeal, we will not disturb the family court’s custody or parenting time orders absent an abuse of discretion.”) (citations omitted).

Smith v. Smith, 253 Ariz. 2 LARSEN v. RANGEL Decision of the Court 43, 45, ¶ 9 (App. 2022) ( ¶ 11 (App. 2013)).

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (parenting time); ¶ 21 (App. 2008) (child support).