Valenzuela v. Sedillo

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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:

ANTHONY C. VALENZUELA,
Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

PRINCESS SEDILLO,
Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0512 FC
FILED 6-30-2020

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2012-005536
The Honorable Scott A. Blaney, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Princess Sedillo, Avondale
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

Cantor Law Group, PLLC, Phoenix
By Joshua A. Barreda
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

VALENZUELA v. SEDILLO
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court,
in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Princess Sedillo (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order
designating Anthony Valenzuela (“Father”) the primary residential parent
of their minor child. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 A.V. was born to Mother and Father in April 2012. In January
2013, the superior court awarded Mother and Father joint legal decision-
making authority and equal parenting time with A.V. Mother soon
absconded with A.V. and ended all communication.

¶3 Over a year later, Father petitioned the superior court to
award him temporary sole physical custody of A.V. pursuant to the court’s
January 2013 orders. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91.5. Father had not seen
A.V. “in over a year.” He alleged that Mother was “brainwash[ing]” A.V.
and lamented that his efforts to retrieve A.V. had proven futile. The court
ordered Mother to appear at two hearings. She missed both. The court held
Mother in “direct violation” of the January 2013 orders, finding that she
“prevented Father from exercising any parenting time with [A.V.] for over
a year” and “purposely kept her whereabouts from Father.” The court
designated Father as A.V.’s primary residential parent and suspended
Mother’s parenting time pending a November 2014 return hearing. Mother
missed the return hearing, too. The court issued a warrant for law
enforcement to seize immediate custody of A.V. while reaffirming its prior
orders.

¶4 Four years elapsed without development as A.V. remained
with Mother and Father moved to California for work. In November 2018,
Father petitioned the superior court to modify parenting time and asked
that A.V. be relocated to California. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 91.3, 91.4.
Mother counter-petitioned. Father executed the November 2014 warrant in
February 2019, taking custody of A.V. with help from police officers.

2

VALENZUELA v. SEDILLO
Decision of the Court

¶5 At the next temporary order hearing, the court found that
Mother “willfully violated [its orders] for over four years and caused
extreme parental alienation,” reaffirming its temporary orders that Father
remain A.V.’s primary residential parent. Because Mother “acted
unreasonably,” the court granted attorney fees and costs to Father. See
A.R.S. §§ 25-324, -408(J).

¶6 At the ultimate evidentiary hearing, the court heard witness
testimony and received documentary evidence. Both parties were
represented by counsel during the hearing. Following the hearing, the
court issued a final decree permanently designating Father as the primary
residential parent. Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Mother argues the superior court erred when it failed to
properly weigh the evidence or apply the controlling law. She asks us to
designate her as primary residential parent, award equal parenting time to
her and Father, and sanction Father for making false allegations. Father
filed no answering brief, but we exercise our discretion to address the
merits of Mother’s appeal.

¶8 We review parenting time orders for an abuse of discretion,
Woyton v. Ward, 247 Ariz. 529, 531, ¶ 5 (App. 2019), which “occurs when the
court commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision,” DeLuna
v. Petitto, 247 Ariz. 420, 423, ¶ 9 (App. 2019), 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,” Little v. Little, 193 Ariz.
518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999) (quoting Fought v. Fought, 94 Ariz. 187, 188 (1963)). We
defer to the court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.
Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469, 471, ¶ 4 (App. 2018).

¶9 Mother asks us to reweigh the evidence, pointing to more
favorable evidence for her position. But “we do not reweigh the evidence”
on appeal, and instead “defer to the [superior] court’s determinations of
witness credibility and the weight given to conflicting evidence.” Lehn v.
Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019). Beyond that, substantial
evidence supports the court’s designation of Father as primary residential
parent. In re Estate of Pouser, 193 Ariz. 574, 579, ¶ 13 (1999) (“Substantial
evidence is evidence which would permit a reasonable person to reach the
trial court’s result.”). The superior court included specific, detailed findings
in its decision under A.R.S. §§ 25-403(A), -403.01 and -408(I). See Owen v.

3

VALENZUELA v. SEDILLO
Decision of the Court

Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418, 421, ¶ 9 (App. 2003); Woyton, 247 Ariz. at ¶¶ 8-10.
Among other things, Mother absconded with A.V., depriving Father of any
contact with his child for several years. This fact convinced the court that
Father would be “more likely to allow the child frequent, meaningful and
continued contact with the other parent.” A.R.S. § 25-403(A)(6). The court
also feared that Mother would “continue to hinder [A.V.’s] relationship
with Father and will do what it takes to undermine Father’s credibility as a
parent.”

¶10 We deny Mother’s request for sanctions. The superior court
assessed witness credibility and found Father’s testimony more credible
than Mother’s testimony. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App.
2009). Mother cites no authority for her fee request, which we deny.

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm the superior court’s order.

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

4