Cited by

¶ 5 (1999) (citation omitted); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).

§ 25-403(B); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

Nevertheless, we may review a waived argument in our discretion, and, in light of the liberty interests implicated by forced administration of anti-psychotic medication, as well as the long- established requirement of strict statutory compliance, we do so here.

Further, we disagree with Father that the court abdicated its responsibility to use its independent judgment, -74, ¶ 14 (App. 2013), and DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), by quoting the older child’s counselor when making its findings.

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (parenting issues); ¶ 8 (App. 2018) (child support); ¶ 6 (App. 2019) (property).

¶16 We review the family court’s denial of a petition for legal decision-making and parenting time for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), and the denial of a motion for reconsideration, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (parenting time); ¶ 8 (App. 2018) (child support); ¶ 6 (App. 2019) (property division and attorney’s fees).

See, ¶ 14 (App. 2013); ¶ 7 (App. 2003)

-74 ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (applying A.R.S.

See, ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (Waiver does not apply when it conflicts with a child’s best interests.).

¶22 “The [superior] court has an obligation to equitably divide clearly identified community property.” ¶ 20 (App. 2013).

¶ 4 (App. 2018); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

All superior 4 ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (The superior court “can neither delegate a judicial decision to an expert witness nor abdicate its responsibility to exercise independent judgment.

¶ 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.”); (“[E]ven an intentional waiver of child support is not b

3 ¶ 11 (App. 2013); ¶ 5 (1999).