Hayden v. Lynch

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

In re the Matter of:

BRIAN HAYDEN, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

SARAH LYNCH, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0352 FC
FILED 3-24-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC 2018-095111
The Honorable Kristin Culbertson, Judge

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCE

Sarah Lynch, Phoenix
Respondent/Appellant
 HAYDEN v. LYNCH
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Sarah Lynch (“Mother”) appeals from the superior court’s
order establishing legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and
child support for the minor child (“the child”) she shares with Brian
Hayden (“Father”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On July 31, 2018, Father petitioned the superior court to
establish legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child
support for the child. Father requested that the court: (1) designate him the
child’s primary residential parent, (2) award Mother reasonable parenting
time as set forth in his proposed parenting time plan (nights and every other
weekend with Father; days and every other weekend with Mother), (3)
award the parties joint legal decision-making authority, and (4) order
Mother to pay child support.

¶3 On August 20, 2018, Mother responded to Father’s petition.
She, in turn, requested that the court: (1) designate her the child’s primary
residential parent, (2) award Father reasonable parenting time as set forth
in her proposed parenting time plan (“days off” and every other weekend
with Father; nights, days, and every other weekend with Mother), (3) award
the parties joint legal decision-making authority, and (4) order Father to pay
child support.

¶4 On September 6, 2018, the superior court entered an order
requiring the parties to appear for an early resolution conference on
October 16, 2018. Mother failed to appear at the conference, however. Upon
finding that Mother “was properly notified,” the court assessed a “no-show
fee” to Mother for her failure to appear.

¶5 On December 12, 2018, the superior court held a resolution
management conference. Again, Mother failed to appear. Upon finding that
the conference was “a properly noticed proceeding” and Mother had failed

2
 HAYDEN v. LYNCH
Decision of the Court

to appear without good cause, the court proceeded with the conference in
her absence.

¶6 On March 26, 2019, the superior court held a trial on Father’s
petition. For the third time, Mother failed to appear. Upon finding that the
trial was “a properly noticed proceeding” and Mother’s failure to appear
was without good cause, the court proceeded with the trial in her absence.
After Father testified, the court: (1) awarded the parties joint legal decision-
making authority, (2) designated Father the primary residential parent, (3)
awarded Mother parenting time every weekend from 8:30 a.m. on Friday
(daycare/school drop-off) until 8:30 a.m. on Monday (daycare/school
drop-off), (4) ordered the holiday and summer schedule set forth in
Mother’s proposed parenting plan, and (5) ordered Mother to pay child
support in the amount of $106 per month. Mother timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

¶7 Mother asks this court to vacate the superior court’s order and
remand for a new trial because she did not present evidence for the court’s
consideration. In making this request, Mother does not contest that the
superior court mailed her a notice of the time and place for the trial. Instead,
she contends that she did not receive any notice because she was no longer
living at “the previous address on file” with the court.

¶8 We generally review legal decision-making authority,
parenting time, and child support orders for an abuse of discretion. DeLuna
v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420, 423, ¶ 9 (App. 2019) (legal decision-making
authority and parenting time); McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 30, ¶ 6 (App.
2002) (child support). We review claims of due process violations, however,
de novo. Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 16 (App. 2014).

¶9 A parent “is entitled to due process whenever his or her
custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.” Smart v.
Cantor, 117 Ariz. 539, 542 (1977). At a minimum, due process requires
adequate notice and the opportunity to appear and be heard. Id.

¶10 In this case, the superior court proceeded with a properly
noticed trial in Mother’s absence, and Mother has failed to demonstrate
good cause for her failure to appear. Instead, Mother concedes that she
failed to update her current address with the superior court and, in fact, did
not do so until she filed her notice of appeal. Although Mother responded
to Father’s petition on August 20, 2018, the record reflects that she did not
contact the court thereafter until April 19, 2019, when she filed her notice of
appeal. Her failure to inquire about the status of her case for eight months

3
 HAYDEN v. LYNCH
Decision of the Court

was not reasonable and nothing in the record suggests that her failure to
appear was otherwise excused by good cause. Therefore, the superior court
did not err by proceeding to trial in Mother’s absence and entering a legal
decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support order based
on the evidence presented.

CONCLUSION

¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

4