Cited by

¶11 “[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).

–46 ¶¶ 25–27 (App. 2020).

“At a minimum, due process requires that litigants be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” ¶ 29 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).

¶13 When deciding whether to modify parenting time, “the superior court must engage in a two-stage inquiry.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020).

¶15 When deciding whether to modify legal decision-making and parenting time, “the superior court must engage in a two-stage inquiry.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020).

longer involved in her children’s lives and has refused to conform her actions in accordance with the best interests of the child by refusing to acknowledge her substance abuse and mental health issues.” The court’s findings are supported by the record, see Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30 ¶ 16, and it didn’t abuse its discretion in modifying the legal decision-making order, ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (we will not reverse unless there is a “clear absence of evidence to support” the superior court’s findings that t

On appeal, “[w]e will not substitute our judgment by reweighing the evidence underlying the court’s best-interests’ analysis.” ¶ 27 (App. 2020).

The court must determine “whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) ().

¶ 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).

¶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).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 27 (App. 2020).

¶ 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).

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).

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).

"[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)).

¶ 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 .

¶ 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.).

¶ 29 (App. 2020) (courts balance due process with managing their dockets).

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).