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.

108 citing documents.

  • Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Johnson v. Espinoza Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (); ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (); ¶ 17 (App. 2015) (quoting Canty, 178 Ariz. at 448).
  • Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • Hinton v. Hinton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    are for the court alone to decide.”); –02, ¶¶ 21–23 (App. 2013) (vacating order concerning legal decision-making 13 HINTON v. HINTON Decision of the Court and parenting time where court incorporated expert witness’ findings “by reference” and made no inde
  • 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).