Cited by

However, “division of an asset is not automatically waived when one or both of the parties fails to list the asset in a pretrial statement, if exhibits are admitted and testimony regarding the asset is given at trial.” ¶ 20 (App. 2013) (distinguishing Leathers).

¶ 4 (App. 2018); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (rejecting a waiver argument and holding that “the best interests of the child trump the consequences ordinarily imposed for violations of the rules”); see also A.R.S.

This court reviews the superior court’s orders regarding legal decision-making, parenting time and child support for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013); ¶ 6 (App. 2002), viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to upholding the orders, ¶ 2 (2018).

¶8 Father argues the superior court abused its discretion by failing “to provide a factual basis for restricting Father’s parenting time.” He relies on this court’s which vacated a custody order because it lacked “any discussion of the statutory factors.” Id.

¶ 10 (App. 2013) (stating that generally a party waives an issue if it fails to raise the issue in the trial court); n.6, ¶ 20 (App. 2005) (finding waiver of constitutional issues that were not raised in the superior court).

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

But the court may adopt the findings and conclusions of others so long as they are “consistent with the ones that it reaches independently after properly considering the facts.” (approving the practice of adopting findings proposed by a party after independent analysis) (citations omitted); -74, ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (finding error where the family court “delegated its obligation to independently weigh the evidence” to an expert witness rather than making independent findings) (citing DePasquale, 181

-73, ¶¶ 9-10 (App. 2013) (declining to apply the discretionary doctrine of waiver to Father’s argument challenging parenting time ruling, which must be based on the children’s best interests).

-73, ¶¶ 7-10 (App. 2013) (declining to find waiver when family court’s custody order made no 4 LOGAN B. v. DCS, et al. Opinion of the Court written factual findings regarding the statutorily mandated best interests f

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

at ¶ 20 ( ¶ 5 (App. 2002)); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

¶ 20 (App. 2013); see A.R.S.

¶ 11 (App. 2013); see also Pridgeon, 134 Ariz. at 179 (“The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a change of circumstances has occurred.” (citation omitted)).

Nold v. Nold , , 273, ¶ 11, , 1096 (App. 2013).