Cited by

decision) (Morse, J., specially concurring) ("[W]hen an appeal raises debatable issues, and a child's best interests are not at issue, we must treat an appellee's failure to respond as a confession of reversible error."); ¶ 9 (App. 2014) (stating that we "may" treat a failure to file an answering brief as a confession of reversible error on debatable issues).

¶ 9 (App. 2014); but see Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289, 2024 WL 1282653, *1 ¶ 5 (Ariz. App. March 26, 2024) (mem.

DISCUSSION ¶14 “We review an order of protection for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 10 (App. 2014).

¶15 on which Husband relies, do not change our analysis.

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

“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) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

“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).

“A trial 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 trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.’” ¶ 10 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2012)).

¶9 those cases do not support Tovar’s argument that courts should conduct an “endangerment analysis” when making a section 13-910 determination.

¶ 9 (App. 2014); Bulova Watch Co. v. Super City Dep’t Stores of Ariz., Inc.

at ¶ 17; ¶ 10 (App. 2014).