Cited by

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

112 citing documents.

  • 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).