Cited by

“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).

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 (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).

3 ROBLEDO v. ROBLEDO Decision of the Court I. Order of Protection ¶11 “We review an order of protection for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 10 (App. 2014).

We otherwise review a protective order for abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2014), and defer to the superior court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, ¶ 13 (App. 1998); Ariz. R. Civ.

However, [this Court is] not required to do so, and [it may] address the substance of [the] appeal in [its] discretion.” ¶ 9 (App. 2014) (citations omitted).

¶¶ 20, 22 (App. 2014) (emphasizing that a "restriction against firearms does not automatically follow an order of protection").

1 Father filed no answering brief, but we decline to find a confession of error because there is no debatable issue, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), and a child’s future hangs in the balance, (refusing to treat lack of answering brief as confession of error when children would be adversely affected).

A superior court abuses its discretion when it makes “an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the [superior] court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 10 (App. 2014) (citation omitted).