Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Backstrand v. Backstrand, 479 P.3d 846.

112 citing documents.

  • 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