state/carlos v. Lewis

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. DES
ALICIA CARLOS,
Petitioners/Appellees,

v.

LARENZO LEWIS, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 23-0408 FC
FILED 5-9-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2022-053438
The Honorable Christine E. Mulleneaux, Commissioner Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Jennifer R. Blum
Counsel for Petitioners/Appellees

Alicia Carlos, Glendale
Petitioner/Appellee

Larenzo Lewis, Phoenix
Respondent/Appellant
 STATE/CARLOS v. LEWIS
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the court, in
which Presiding Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Brian Y. Furuya joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Larenzo Lewis (“Father”) appeals the family court’s child
support order, arguing that his son’s mother improperly influenced the
child’s testimony and that the child support award should be reduced
because of Father’s present indigency. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Alicia Carlos (“Mother”) are the biological parents
of a son born in November 2008. In December 2022, the Department of
Economic Security petitioned the family court to establish paternity and
child support. Father admitted paternity but argued that he owed no back
child support because he and Mother had exercised equal parenting time.
The court entered an order establishing paternity and set a hearing to
determine child support.

¶3 Father, Mother, and their son testified at the hearing. No
exhibits were provided. While no court reporter was present, the
proceedings were digitally recorded. The court found that Father was
$18,573 in arrears for the period from January 2020 through May 2023, and
required him to pay $511 per month for child support and fees going
forward. The court entered the judgment under Arizona Rule of Family
Law Procedure (“Rule”) 78(c). Father timely appealed, and this court has
jurisdiction. A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 Father argues on appeal that a back child support award was
improper because he had an equal role in parenting. While his brief fails to
comply with the civil appellate rules by failing to include any citation to
legal authority or the record, see Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a), we nonetheless
exercise our discretion to address the substance of the appeal, see Clemens v.
Clark, 101 Ariz. 413, 414 (1966). This court reviews child support awards for
an abuse of discretion and will affirm the family court’s rulings for any

2
 STATE/CARLOS v. LEWIS
Decision of the Court

reason supported by the record. Nickel v. Potter, 537 P.3d 813, 816 ¶ 9 (Ariz.
App. 2023) (internal citations omitted).

¶5 Father asserts that Mother “coached” their son to give
testimony that misled the family court into finding that Father played an
unequal role in parenting. He presents this argument without evidence, and
the record does not contain any transcripts or a recording of the hearing.
“[T]he appellant [has the] burden to ensure that ‘the record on appeal
contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the
issues raised.’” Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, 217 ¶ 9 (App. 2010) (quoting
Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995)). “[I]n the absence of a transcript,
we presume the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing support
the trial court’s ruling.” Id. Father has thus shown no error.

¶6 Father also asserts that he is presently indigent and requests
that his obligation be reduced. This argument is similarly unsupported.
Child support “may be modified or terminated only on a showing of
changed circumstances that are substantial and continuing.” A.R.S.
§ 25-327(A). Father may petition the family court for modification pursuant
to Rule 91.1(b), but absent a sufficient showing of such changed
circumstances, the judgment stands.

CONCLUSION

¶7 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: AA

3