Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Backstrand v. Backstrand, 479 P.3d 846.
-
Washum v. Paskett
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
345–46, ¶¶ 14, 25 (App. 2020).
- Reeves v. Reeves Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Reeves v. Reeves
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶10 To modify parents’ legal decision making and parenting time, “the superior court must engage in a two-stage inquiry.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020)..
- Murphy v. Stidham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Murphy v. Stidham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Dapra v. Robertson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Dapra v. Robertson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
DISCUSSION ¶7 When considering a petition to modify legal decision-making and parenting time orders, the superior court must first determine “‘whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).
- Jimenez v. Dominguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Jimenez v. Dominguez
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
previously disclosed Police Reports as first-time knowledge or newly discovered evidence.” We review de novo “[w]hether the superior court afforded [Father] due process.” ¶ 28 (App. 2020).
- Ferraro v. Ferraro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Ferraro v. Ferraro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
- Beck v. Pino Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Beck v. Pino
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).
- Krakana v. Hadden Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Krakana v. Hadden
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
When considering a modification petition, the court considers whether there has been “a material change of the circumstances affecting the child’s welfare since the last court order.” ¶ 1 (App. 2020).
- Garza v. Collinsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Garza v. Collinsworth Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Muhammad v. Muhammad Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Muhammad v. Muhammad
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
We review due process challenges de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2020), and will reverse a decision for a due process violation only if the error prejudices a party, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).
- Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Furst v. Mayne Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Jones v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Jones v. Jones
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶9 Husband claims Wife violated his due process rights by “clearly” and “intentional[ly]” deceiving him “into believing that his spousal maintenance [obligation] would be limited to only one year.” We review due process challenges de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2020), and we will reverse a decision based on a due process violation only if the error prejudices a party, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).
- Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
Brevetti v. Brevetti
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
611(a)(2); ¶29 (App. 2020) (explaining courts have discretion to decide “whether additional time is necessary”).
-
Nicaise v. Sundaram
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (quotation omitted).
- Hopkins v. Hopkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Hopkins v. Hopkins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Warren v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- Warren v. Stephens Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
- French v. Montiel Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
French v. Montiel
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
See, ¶ 15 (App. 2020) (noting the relocated child “has and will continue to engage in new activities, form new relationships, and face new challenges” (emphasis added)).
- Rulnick v. Rulnick Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Rulnick v. Rulnick
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
“First, the court must ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020).
- Bosch v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Bosch v. Bosch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Pulkrabek v. Pulkrabeck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Marlowe v. Mickelsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Marlowe v. Mickelsen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Pulkrabek v. Pulkrabeck
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).
- Bennie v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Bennie v. Johnson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (explaining that, before considering whether modification is in child’s best interests, court must first determine whether “there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child” (quotation omitted)).
- Mahmood v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Mahmood v. Turner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
- Gish v. Greyson 514 P.3d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Gish v. Greyson
514 P.3d 937
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (The burden is on the petitioner to show the conditions and circumstances have changed after the parenting order to justify a modification.).
- McCanless v. McCanless Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
McCanless v. McCanless
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).
- Robinson v. Robinson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Robinson v. Robinson
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Vincent, 238 Ariz. at 155, ¶¶ 16–17; ¶ 14 (App. 2020).