Cited by

rt finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a significant history of domestic violence.” Although “significant” is not defined by the statute, reasonable factors to consider include: “(1) [t]he seriousness of the particular incident of domestic violence, (2) the frequency or pervasiveness of the domestic violence, (3) and the passage of time and its impact.” ¶ 15 n.6 (App. 2019) (alteration in original).

(change of circumstances); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (best- interests findings); ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (credibility assessments and weighing evidence); ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (legal decision-making and parenting time); ¶ 7 (App. 2017) (child support); ¶ 20 (App. 2016) (attorney’s fees).

An abuse of discretion occurs if the court makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion, ¶ 9 (App. 2019), fails to consider evidence in reaching a conclusion, or makes a finding of fact that lacks substantial evidence in the record.

¶ 11 (App. 2019) (“If the court finds .

An abuse of discretion occurs when the court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision, ¶ 9 (App. 2019), or the record is “devoid of competent evidence to support the decision,” ¶ 4 (App. 2018) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

They are: “(1) [t]he seriousness of the particular incident of domestic violence, (2) the frequency or pervasiveness of the domestic violence, (3) and the passage of time and its impact.” ¶ 15 n.6 (App. 2019) (noting these non- statutory “factors seem reasonable”).

“We review the superior court’s legal decision-making and parenting-time orders for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 9 (App. 2019).

¶ 14 (App. 2021); ¶ 9 (App. 2019).

When allegations of a parent’s domestic violence exist, the superior court must make “detailed, specific findings related to legal decision making and parenting time.” ¶ 4 (App. 2019) (citing A.R.S.

DISCUSSION I. Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time ¶9 “We review the superior court’s legal decision-making and parenting time orders for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 9 (App. 2019).

¶ 14 (App. 4 KRAKANA v. HADDEN Decision of the Court 2021); ¶ 9 (App. 2019).