Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Backstrand v. Backstrand, 479 P.3d 846.
- HULL v. WILLIAMS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- HULL v. WILLIAMS Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
- Handy v. Shaw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Handy v. Shaw
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
The court must determine “whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) ().
- Arellano v. Nunez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Arellano v. Nunez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (superior court must find a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of a child before it may determine whether modification of legal decision-making and parenting time provisions are in the child’s best interests).
- Gonzalez v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Gonzalez v. Martinez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶19 A parent seeking to modify a legal decision-making or parenting time order must first show “a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation modified).
- Richer v. Cornelius Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
-
Richer v. Cornelius
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 27 (App. 2020).
- Schneider v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Schneider v. Harris Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Goetzinger-Amendt v. Goetzinger-Poe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Goetzinger-Amendt v. Goetzinger-Poe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Stevenson v. Stevenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Stevenson v. Stevenson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (stating that once the court makes a finding of changed circumstances, it then determines whether a change in custody is in the best interests of the child).
- Tamara Camila Rivero Quinteros v. Anthony Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Tamara Camila Rivero Quinteros v. Anthony Celaya Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
- Greenboom v. Ran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Greenboom v. Ran Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Gallegos v. Wildenstein Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Gallegos v. Wildenstein
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
GALLEGOS v. WILDENSTEIN Decision of the Court ¶9 To modify legal decision-making and parenting time, the court must first “ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child,” then it must “determine whether a change in custody will be in the best interests of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (cleaned up).
- Kuerschner v. Kuerschner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Kuerschner v. Kuerschner
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
A trial court’s discretion to control the management of its docket, however, is subject to the litigants’ due process rights to an “adequate opportunity to be heard.” –47, ¶ 29 (App. 2020).
- Wilcox v. Wilcox Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Wilcox v. Wilcox
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
"[T]he court may modify or reduce parenting time by (1) determining 'whether a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child' exists, then (2) determining 'whether a change in custody will be in the best interests of the child.'" Mesa, ___ Ariz. at ___, ¶24 (emphasis added) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2020)).
- In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.R. and B.R. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to A.R. and B.R.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 32 (App. 2020) (rejecting mother’s claim that trial court’s time constraints violated her procedural due process rights and noting that mother’s counsel “did not .
- Lopez v. Tinnean Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Lopez v. Tinnean
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (To modify a decision-making order, the court must first determine a material change of circumstance, then determine the child’s best interests.).
- King v. Bertram Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
King v. Bertram
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 29 (App. 2020) (courts balance due process with managing their dockets).
- Brown v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Brown v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- White v. Barreras Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
White v. Barreras
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
She argues she timely requested more trial time to address newfound evidence, and that the court’s denial of her requests forced her to “jettison evidence as to some issues in order to present others.” ¶13 “Whether the superior court afforded [Wife] due process presents a question of law we review de novo.” ¶ 28 (App. 2020).
- Mesa v. O'Connor 563 P.3d 1179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Mesa v. O'Connor
563 P.3d 1179
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶ 18 (App. 2009); ¶ 18 (App. 2020) (Whether imposed by the court or agreed to by the parties, the parenting provisions of a decree or other order represent a snapshot of the child’s best interests and form the baseline from which future courts assess whether a material change of circumstances has occurred.).
- Polich v. Polich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
- Lazzara v. Parker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Lazzara v. Parker
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
I. May Order ¶10 “[A] court may modify a parenting plan only if it first finds a material change of the circumstances affecting the child’s welfare since the last court order.” ¶ 1 (App. 2020).
- Servin v. Quezada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Servin v. Quezada
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶10 When presented with a request to modify legal decision- making or parenting-time provisions, the superior court must first “ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020).
- Boozer v. Boozer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Boozer v. Boozer
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
proceed to determine whether [a modification] will be in the best interests of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).
- Schritter v. Schritter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Schritter v. Schritter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Campbell v. Newell Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Campbell v. Newell
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
DISCUSSION ¶11 When considering a petition to modify legal decision-making authority, the superior court first considers “whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) ().
- Washum v. Paskett Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024