Cited by

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).

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).