Cited by

¶ 9 (App. 2014); ¶ 2 (App. 2002) (declining to find confession of error because a child’s best interests were at issue).

While we may treat that failure as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), the best interests of the parties’ children are at issue, so we decline to do so.

“When debatable issues exist and an appellee fails to file an answering brief, we may consider such failure a confession of reversible error.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

–60, ¶ 16 (App. 2014); ¶ 10 (App. 2020).

In support of her position, in which this Court held that “[w]hen debatable issues exist and an appellee fails to file an answering brief, we may consider such failure a confession of reversible error.” Id.

“When debatable issues exist and an appellee fails to file an answering brief, we may consider such failure a confession of reversible error.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

When an appellee fails to file an answering brief and debatable issues exist, this Court “may consider such failure a confession of reversible error.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

¶9 “We review due process claims de novo.” ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).

If appellant raises a debatable issue, an appellee's 3 MCAFEE v. STROTHERS Decision of the Court failure to respond is generally treated as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), unless the case involves a child's best interests, ¶ 18 (2003)

If an appellant raises a debatable issue, an appellee's failure to respond is generally treated as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), unless the case involves a child's best interests, ¶ 18 (2003)

¶ 9 1 Benavides is not a party to this appeal.

“When debatable issues exist and an appellee fails to file an answering brief, we may consider such failure a confession of reversible error.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

¶10 “When debatable issues exist and an appellee fails to file an answering brief, we may consider such failure a confession of reversible error.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

–60 ¶¶ 16-18 (App. 2014).

¶ 9 (App. 2014); Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *5 ¶¶ 19–20 (Ariz. App. March 26, 2024) (Morse Jr., J., specially concurring) (mem.

argues he was not “provided the opportunity to respond and present relevant evidence or have witnesses testify,” and this denial was solely based on “the court’s concern over time and not law or procedure.” ¶15 Due process requires that Parsons be given notice that was “reasonably calculated to apprise him of the action in order to adequately prepare his opposition,” ¶ 16 (App. 2014) (citation omitted), and an “opportunity to be heard in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time,” Ariz. Dep’t

We review an order of protection following an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion, but review questions of law de novo, ¶ 5 (App. 2018), including whether due process rights have been infringed, ¶ 16 (App. 2014).

DISCUSSION ¶5 Mother did not file an answering brief, which we could interpret as a confession of error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), but we reach the merits in the exercise of our discretion because the best interests of three children stand in the balance, ¶ 10 (App. 2013) (the best interests of a child trumps the discretionary doctrine of waiver).