Cited by

-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).

5 MESA v. O’CONNOR Opinion of the Court Superior Court, -74, ¶ 14 (App. 2013).

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (“we agree with the general proposition that, when a party fails to raise an issue before the [superior] court, the issue is waived on appeal[.]”).

¶ 18 (App. 2013); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶25 “[T]he best interests of [a] child trump the consequences ordinarily imposed for violations of the rules.” ¶ 10 (App. 2013).

We review parenting time orders for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), but review questions of statutory interpretation de novo, ¶ 9 (App. 2020).

DISCUSSION ¶8 We review parenting time orders for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), but review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.

¶ 11 (App. 2013); ¶ 14 (App. 2010); ¶ 9 (App. 2007).

“On appeal, we will not disturb the family court’s custody or parenting time orders absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 11 (App. 2013).