DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Christopher K. v. Markaa S., 311 P.3d 1110.

104 citing documents.

  • Ziviski v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Ziviski v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Imatdinov v. Imatdinov Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 19 (App. 2013) (quoting A.R.S.
  • Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Thornburg v. Thornburg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (); ¶ 16 (App. 2003) 1 Absent material changes from the relevant date, we cite a statute’s current version.
  • Peter D. v. Geetika C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Peter D. v. Geetika C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 25-403(A).” ¶ 18 (App. 2013).
  • Deluna v. Petitto 450 P.3d 1273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Deluna v. Petitto 450 P.3d 1273 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    §§ 25-403(B), -403.03(D); ¶¶ 18-19 (App. 2013).
  • Faries v. Faries, II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Faries v. Faries, II Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 10 (App. 2018); ¶ 15 (App. 2013).
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Lewis v. Rehkow Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 25-411(L) (“The court shall deny the motion [to modify] unless it finds that adequate cause for hearing the motion is established by the pleadings.”); ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (“If the court finds .
  • A. Espinoza v. M. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • A. Espinoza v. M. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (citation omitted).
  • Perkins v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • Perkins v. Perkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    ¶ 15 (App. 2013); see also A.R.S.
  • Wilson v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Wilson v. Wilson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    “[T]he responsibility to make the findings is the court’s alone.” ¶ 20 (App. 2013) ().
  • Greene v. Sawicki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Greene v. Sawicki Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    ¶ 23 (App. 2013) (holding, in non-UCCJEA case involving domestic-violence and child-abuse allegations, that “[i]t is not possible to make [ ] determinations adequately without testimony from witnesses with firsthand knowledge.”).
  • Gonzales v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Gonzales v. Vargas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    .”); ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (“If the court finds a .
  • Ervin v. Mills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Ervin v. Mills Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Engstrom v. McCarthy 411 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Engstrom v. McCarthy 411 P.3d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Cf. Christopher K. v. Markaa S. , , 301, ¶ 18
  • French v. Morin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • French v. Morin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    4 FRENCH v. MORIN, ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (“If the court finds [a material] change in circumstances, it must then determine whether a change in custody would be in the child’s best interests.”).
  • Wallace v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Wallace v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Kazi v. Saleem Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Richert v. Buck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • Richert v. Buck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶8 In considering a motion to modify parenting time, the trial court “must first determine whether there has been a change in circumstances materially affecting the child’s welfare,” and only if such change exists, then evaluate whether modification “would be in the child’s best interests.” ¶ 15, RICHERT v. BUCK Decision of the Court 1110, 1113 (App. 2013) ( ).
  • Demario v. Demario Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Demario v. Demario Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    ¶ 20 (App. 2013) (citing DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher), ).
  • Campbell v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Campbell v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Nagle v. Nagle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Nagle v. Nagle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Spero v. Hon. herrod/spero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Spero v. Hon. herrod/spero Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    § 25-403(A)); -02, ¶ 21, -15 (App. 2013) (noting that the court cannot delegate the best interests determination to an expert).
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Miller v. Miller Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    3 MILLER v. MILLER Decision of the Court does the court reach the question of whether a change in custody would be in the child's best interest.” Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), (citations omitted); ¶ 15, (same); ¶ 11, (holding a substantial change in joint physical custody constitutes a change in custody requiring § 25-403 findings).
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Manola v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    ¶17 Additionally, “the absence of findings concerning domestic violence constitutes an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 19
  • Stevens v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Stevens v. Yohannes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    § 25-403(A) factors, however, is not waived by a party’s failure to raise the issue; “[t]his is because the findings requirement not only allows effective appellate review, but also provides the superior court with necessary baseline information against which to measure future petitions for changes in [legal decision-making].” n.6 ¶ 18, n.6 (App. 2013) (citing Reid, 222 Ariz. at 208-10 ¶¶ 3 Although Mother relies on A.R.S.