Matie v. Meehan

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

LENA MARIA MATIE, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

SHANNON MICHAEL MEEHAN, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0444 FC
FILED 01-30-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. L8015DO201307322
The Honorable Megan A. McCoy, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Berkshire Law Office, PLLC, Tempe
By Keith Berkshire, Alexandra Sandlin
Counsel for Respondent/Appellant
 MATIE v. MEEHAN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

C A M P B E L L, Judge:

¶1 Shannon Meehan (Father) appeals the superior court’s order
increasing his child support obligation and giving his daughter (Katie1)
discretion over when he can exercise his parenting time. For the following
reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Lena Matie (Mother) and Father married in 1999 and had
Katie in 2008. In 2013, Mother filed for dissolution of marriage. In 2015, the
court entered a dissolution decree, awarding the parties joint legal decision-
making, designating Mother as the primary residential parent, and
awarding Father parenting time every Wednesday to Thursday and every
other weekend. Father was ordered to pay Mother $800 per month in child
support.

¶3 In 2018, Mother petitioned to modify legal decision-making
and parenting time. Father counter-petitioned, seeking to modify parenting
time. The court issued an order affirming joint legal decision-making,
modifying parenting time to a week on, week off equal schedule, and
reducing Father’s support obligation to $42 per month.

¶4 In December 2023, Mother petitioned for sole legal decision-
making, increased parenting time, and increased child support. She
requested temporary orders granting her sole legal decision-making and
limiting or suspending Father’s parenting time. Mother alleged in part that
Katie had been molested at Father’s home by Father’s former girlfriend’s
son, and as a result, Katie now experiences symptoms of post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) while at Father’s home. Katie has been diagnosed
with PTSD and is now receiving counseling twice a month.

¶5 After a hearing in January 2024, the court issued temporary
orders awarding Mother sole legal decision-making and affirming the

1 We use a pseudonym for the minor child to protect her anonymity.

2
 MATIE v. MEEHAN
Decision of the Court

alternating-week parenting time schedule but allowing Katie to decide
whether to spend the night with Father. Since January, she has not spent
the night at Father’s home.

¶6 In March 2024, the court conducted an in camera interview
with Katie. She explained that Father’s former girlfriend and her two sons
used to live in Father’s house. When Katie was about six years old, one of
the sons started coming into her bedroom and sexually abusing her. She
repeatedly reported the abuse to Father, but he did nothing about it. Katie
reported that the abuse continued for around five years until the girlfriend
and sons moved out. Katie explained that she feels uncomfortable sleeping
in Father’s home because of the abuse. Also, on the nights she is supposed
to spend with Father, he usually works late, and she often ends up alone in
his office. Even when they are together, Father does not make an effort to
spend quality time with her. Katie asked to stay at Mother’s house
permanently, but that she also be allowed to spend time with Father, in case
he ever makes time.

¶7 At the modification hearing, Mother testified that Katie
informed her of the abuse in 2021 after the girlfriend and her sons had
moved out. Katie told Mother that she experiences flashbacks when she is
in her room at Father’s house. Katie told Mother that Father works late
“quite frequently” on nights she is scheduled to spend with him. Katie told
Mother that Father confronted her about the in camera interview, made her
read the entire transcript to him, and said: “Why don’t you just have your
stepdad Chris walk you down the aisle.”

¶8 Father testified that nothing happened in his house that he
would consider molestation. He explained that Katie informed him that the
boy had pulled her pants down, but after investigating, he determined that
it was nothing more than a “school prank.” He set up surveillance cameras,
prohibited the children from entering each other’s rooms, and required
their bedroom doors to stay open unless they were changing. Father
testified that Katie never disclosed any other incidents of inappropriate
contact. Father stated that he is concerned about Mother allowing Katie to
get piercings, stay out late, and post inappropriate content on social media.

¶9 Father owns and operates an auto repair shop, tow service,
and locksmith service. Father submitted an affidavit of financial
information (AFI) reporting a monthly “salary/wages” of $867 and
expenses of $15,411, of which the business pays $6,359, and his fiancé pays
$500. Father asked the court to attribute him $5,000 in monthly income to
calculate child support.

3
 MATIE v. MEEHAN
Decision of the Court

¶10 The court issued an order modifying legal decision-making,
parenting time, and child support. The court granted Mother sole legal
decision-making. The court found that Father having frequent contact with
Katie would endanger her mental and physical health because Father “has
not supported [Katie’s] healing from the trauma that occurred in his care
and appears unable to listen to or respect [Katie] as she articulates her own
needs.” The court also found that Katie, now 16, “has stated very clearly
she does not feel a priority or engaged with Father, and instead of ensuring
she does, he punished and shamed her for her statements to the Court.” The
court ordered Mother to serve as the primary residential parent and
granted Father parenting time “[i]f [Katie] chooses,” clarifying that Katie
“shall not be forced to attend any parenting time with Father and may
choose not to respond to Father’s phone calls or texts, but also must be
permitted to if she chooses.”

¶11 The court found that Father’s monthly income was $8,600
based on “the benefits from AFI and actual income.” It attributed Father
zero days of parenting time because Katie “has currently refused parenting
time with her Father.” Accordingly, it ordered Father to pay $927 per month
in child support. Father timely appealed the parenting time and child
support orders.

DISCUSSION

¶12 Father argues that the superior court erred because it (1)
ceded its authority to determine parenting time to a minor child, (2) failed
to establish a specific parenting time schedule, (3) attributed Father a higher
monthly income than the evidence supports and, (4) attributed Father zero
days of parenting time in calculating child support. We review parenting
time and child support orders for an abuse of discretion. Nold v. Nold, 232
Ariz. 270, 273, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (parenting time); Hetherington v.
Hetherington, 220 Ariz. 16, 21, ¶ 21 (App. 2008) (child support).

I. Parenting Time

¶13 Father argues that by granting Katie discretion to decide
whether she spends time with Father, the court violated its obligation to
issue a parenting time order that is in Katie’s best interests. “The court shall
determine . . . parenting time . . . in accordance with the best interests of the
child.” A.R.S. § 25-403(A). “The child’s best interests ‘are for the court alone
to decide’ and not delegable to another party.” Mesa v. O’Connor,
1 CA-CV 24-0414, slip op. at *5, ¶ 16 (Ariz. App. Jan. 28, 2025) (citation
omitted).

4
 MATIE v. MEEHAN
Decision of the Court

¶14 Father analogizes this case to Nold v. Nold. In Nold, the trial
court deferred to the custody evaluator’s report in determining custody and
thereby “abdicated its responsibility to decide the best interests of the
children, and therefore abused its discretion.” 232 Ariz. at 273–74, ¶ 14.
However, this court recently held in Mesa v. O’Connor that if the trial court
“weighed the evidence, analyzed all relevant [best-interests] factors, noted
those on the record, and entered the parenting order,” it does “not err by
assigning Father parenting time at Child’s discretion.” 1 CA-CV 24-0414,
slip op. at *6–7, ¶ 19. Like in Mesa, the court here held an evidentiary
hearing, made findings on the record for all the relevant A.R.S. § 25-403
factors, and weighed those factors in determining that it is in Katie’s best
interests to decide whether she spends time with Father. Id. The court’s
decision to leave Father’s parenting time to Katie’s discretion is supported
by the evidence of Father and Katie’s tenuous relationship and the best-
interests factors. See A.R.S. § 25-403.

¶15 Father next argues that the parenting plan violated A.R.S.
§ 25-403.02 because it did not maximize parenting time for each parent and
failed to provide a specific schedule of parenting time. Under § 25-
403.02(B), “[c]onsistent with the child’s best interests . . . the court shall
adopt a parenting plan that . . . maximizes [the parents’] respective
parenting time.” And § 25-403.02(C)(3) provides that “[p]arenting plans
shall include . . . [a] practical schedule of parenting time for the child,
including holidays and school vacations.” Even so, “the lodestar for
parenting time is not maximizing parenting time, but focusing on what
parenting time arrangement is in the child’s best interests.” Mesa,
1 CA-CV 24-0414, slip op. at *7, ¶ 20; see A.R.S. § 25-403.02(B) (“Consistent
with the child’s best interests . . . .”). “In some cases, the statutorily
mandated parenting time plan will not include a specified time for a parent
if doing so is not in the child’s best interests.” Mesa, 1 CA-CV 24-0414, slip
op. at *7, ¶ 21.

¶16 Here, based on the evidence of Father and Katie’s
dysfunctional relationship, the court properly could conclude that it was in
Katie’s best interests to choose whether to see Father. See id. at *8, ¶ 22
(“Given the record of hostility between Father and Child, the superior court
did not abuse its discretion by” concluding that it was in “Child’s best
interests that Father have no specific parenting time and instead let Child
determine whether he wanted to spend time with Father.”).

¶17 Father claims that the “order does not implement a specific
schedule.” However, § 25-403.02(C)(3) does not require a “specific”
schedule; it only requires a “practical schedule.” Father does not explain

5
 MATIE v. MEEHAN
Decision of the Court

why Katie having discretion over parenting time would be impractical, and
nothing in the record suggests that it would be. Therefore, the parenting
plan was not an abuse of the court’s discretion.

II. Child Support

¶18 Father argues that the $8,600 the court attributed to him in
monthly income is unsupported by the record. He claims that “[e]ven
utilizing the listed amounts in [his] AFI, [his] maximum monthly income
totaled only $7,726 per month” and “[t]here was no evidence to support a
higher amount.” We disagree.

¶19 In Father’s AFI, he listed $15,411 in total monthly expenses.
He stated that the business pays $6,359 and his fiancée pays $500 of his
monthly expenses. Both contributions constitute income for purposes of
calculating child support. See A.R.S. § 25-320 app. (Guidelines) §§ II.A.1.f.
(including “[e]xpense reimbursements or benefits a parent receives in the
course of employment, self-employment, or the operation of a business”),
II.A.1.b. (including “recurring gifts”); see also Cummings v. Cummings, 182
Ariz. 383, 387 (App. 1994) (“[I]n considering the equities affecting child
support, a court may still take into account any regular and substantial
benefits a parent receives from remarriage.”).

¶20 Based on Father’s AFI, it is unclear how he pays the other
$8,552 in monthly expenses, considering his self-disclosed monthly salary
2

is only $867. Father’s own testimony at the modification hearing shed some
light on this discrepancy. He conceded that his fiancée actually pays “3,000
to 4,000” per month toward his living expenses, not $500 as stated in his
AFI. He also stated that he pays the business’ expenses with a credit card
and “use[s] the money that comes in from customers to pay the other bills.”
Because evidence was presented that his fiancée and the business were
paying more of Father’s living expenses than the AFI indicates, the court
did not abuse its discretion by attributing Father $8,600 in monthly income,
rather than the $7,726 listed in his AFI.

¶21 Father argues that the court erred by attributing him zero
days of parenting time in its child support calculation. The Guidelines
require trial courts to calculate parenting time based on “a court order, a
parenting plan, by the parents’ expectation, or by historical practice.”
Guidelines § V.C. The court found that Katie “has currently refused
parenting time with her Father, and therefore no days are attributed.” The

2 $15,411 – ($6,359 + $500) = $8,552

6
 MATIE v. MEEHAN
Decision of the Court

court’s parenting plan allowed Katie to spend any time with Father or not,
and since the January 2024 order, Katie refused to spend the night at
Father’s home. Based on the parenting plan and Katie’s historical practice,
the court was within its discretion to attribute Father zero days of parenting
time.

CONCLUSION

¶22 We affirm the superior court’s parenting time and child
support orders, and we deny Father’s requests for attorneys’ fees and costs
on appeal.

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

7