Cited by

Although we review a parenting time order for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013), a parenting time order without the required best interests findings is deficient as a matter of law, ¶ 20 (App. 2009).

Nold v. Nold , , 273, ¶ 11

She argues the court’s adoption of the Master’s recommendation to delete Recommendation B was an impermissible abdication of the court’s

Reviewing the family court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) we reject this argument.

Because the court exercised independent judgment in its fact finding, as is its responsibility, and did not merely rely upon the parties to prepare findings that supported its judgment, Elliott, 165 Ariz. at 134; -74, ¶ 14 (App. 2013) (citation omitted), we find no abuse 19 Although both sides filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, only Husband specifically requested such findings, citing Rule 82, Ariz. R. Fam.

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (appellate court will not disturb family court’s parenting time order absent abuse of discretion) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, that portion of the order is vacated and remand is necessary so that the superior court can “perform the necessary statutory analysis.” ¶ 15 (App. 2013).

¶19 (App. 2007) (“The pretrial statement controls the subsequent course of the litigation.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); ¶20 (App. 2013) (deciding where separate pretrial statements are filed, trial court can rule on an issue so long as it is presented in one of the parties’ pretrial statements).

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (involving child custody and parenting time); ¶ 10 (App. 2004) (involving child support).

¶ 11 (App. 2013) (parenting time) ( ¶ 3 (App. 2002)); (child support) ().

¶ 11 (App. 2013) ( ¶ 3 (App. 2002)); see also A.R.S.

§ 25-403 (2016); ¶ 11 (App. 2013).

(noting waiver a discretionary doctrine).

¶ 11, (appellate court reviews superior court parenting time decisions for abuse of discretion).

¶ 11 (App. 2015) ( ¶ 11 (App. 2013)).

DISCUSSION ¶7 Father challenges the family court’s ruling without notice or an opportunity to be heard, as well as the court’s -74, ¶ 14, -97 (App. 2013).

(appellate court reviews family court’s decision regarding parenting time for abuse of discretion and will affirm “[u]nless it clearly appears that the trial judge has mistaken or ignored the evidence”); ¶ 11