Stoddard v. Madril

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Matter of:

JOSHUA STODDARD, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

MARCOS MADRIL, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0132 FC

FILED 11-05-2024

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2023-094192
The Honorable Ashley Blair Rahaman, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Joshua Stoddard, Protected Address
Appellee

Gillespie Shields & Taylor, Phoenix
By DeeAn Gillespie Strub
Counsel for Appellant
 STODDARD v. MADRIL
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Marcos Madril appeals the superior court’s order of
protection and denial of his motion to set aside that order. Finding no error,
we affirm the order of protection, but we lack jurisdiction over his motion
to set aside the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 We must recount the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining an order of protection. Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542, 544, ¶ 5
(App. 2014). Joshua Stoddard (“Father”) and Erica Sisneros (“Mother”)
share parenting time of their five-year-old daughter (“Child”).

¶3 After Child visited Mother in October 2023, Father noticed her
eye was swollen and red, her lip was split, and her face was black and blue.
Father petitioned for an order of protection on Child’s behalf against
Mother’s fiancé, Madril, alleging Madril kissed Child on the lips and then
hit her in the face when she said only her parents could kiss her on the lips.

¶4 The superior court issued a protective order. Madril denied
the allegations and requested a hearing to contest the protective order. At
the hearing, Father testified about Child’s injuries. He introduced pictures
of Child’s injuries and a recorded conversation between Child and a doctor,
during which the doctor described Child’s injuries and Child told the
doctor that Madril had punched and kissed her. Madril and Mother
testified that Child was lying, and insisted that Father coerced Child to
fabricate the story.

¶5 After the hearing, the superior court found Madril had
committed an act of domestic violence within the past year and, finding
good cause, continued the protective order.

2
 STODDARD v. MADRIL
Decision of the Court

¶6 Madril timely appealed, but then moved to set aside the order
of protection based on what he claimed was new evidence. The superior
court denied that motion.1

DISCUSSION

¶7 We lack jurisdiction to review the superior court’s denial of
Madril’s motion to set aside because the superior court lacked jurisdiction
to decide that motion after the notice of appeal. See In re Marriage of Flores
& Martinez, 231 Ariz. 18, 21, ¶ 10 (App. 2012) (“[T]he filing of a notice of
appeal, even one ultimately determined to be a nullity, divests the trial
court of jurisdiction to proceed other than to issue orders in furtherance of
the appeal and to address matters unrelated to the appeal.”).

¶8 We do however have jurisdiction over Madril’s challenge to
the order of protection. A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1); Ariz. R. Protective Ord.
Proc. 42(a)(2), (b)(2). He offers two reasons to reverse that order. First, he
contends the superior court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order because a
family court matter was still active in the superior court. Second, he
contends the evidence was insufficient to support an order of protection.
We reach each argument in turn.

I. Superior Court Jurisdiction.

¶9 Madril first argues the superior court lacked jurisdiction to
enter the order of protection here because Child was involved in another
family court matter. He relies on A.R.S. § 13-3602(T). That reliance is
misplaced because Madril is not a party to that family court matter.

II. Order of Protection.

¶10 We review an order of protection for an abuse of discretion.
Savord, 235 Ariz. at 259, ¶ 10. “An abuse of discretion exists when the
record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s
decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” Hurd
v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 19 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).

1 Father filed no answering brief, but we decline to find a confession
of error because there is no debatable issue, Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256,
259, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), and a child’s future hangs in the balance, Hoffman v.
Hoffman, 4 Ariz. App. 83, 85 (1966) (refusing to treat lack of answering brief
as confession of error when children would be adversely affected).

3
 STODDARD v. MADRIL
Decision of the Court

¶11 The record has ample evidence to support the superior court’s
decision. To issue an order of protection, the court need only find
reasonable cause to believe that Madril may commit an act of domestic
violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the past year.
A.R.S. § 13-3602(E). Domestic violence is broadly defined to include child
abuse. A.R.S. § 13-3623. The court heard Father’s testimony, the recorded
conversation between Child and the doctor, and pictures of Child’s injuries.
It is not our role to reweigh that evidence. State v. Buccheri-Bianca, 233 Ariz.
324, 334, ¶ 38 (App. 2013).

CONCLUSION

¶12 Because Madril shows no error, we affirm.

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

4