Harter v. Molina

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ARIEL HARTER, Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN MICHAEL MOLINA, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 24-0730 FC
FILED 07-29-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2018-002323
The Honorable Patricia A. Starr, Judge

VACATED IN PART

COUNSEL

Ariel Harter, Maricopa
Petitioner/Appellee

Jonathan Michael Molina, Maricopa
Respondent/Appellant
 HARTER v. MOLINA
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Jonathan Molina (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order
on legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. For the
following reasons, we vacate the superior court’s order except for its
contempt ruling.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Ariel Harter (“Mother”) married in September
2017 and have one child together (“Child”). Wife petitioned for dissolution
of marriage in October 2018. The resulting January 2020 dissolution decree,
entered after trial, ordered joint legal decision-making authority with
Father having final say, established a parenting time plan, and ordered
Mother to pay Father $226 per month in child support. The court later
accepted the parents’ stipulation to amend the parenting time plan.

¶3 In February 2022, Father filed a Notice of Intent to Relocate
Minor Child based on his anticipated move to Texas for employment. In
response, Mother filed a Petition to Prevent Relocation. In July 2023, Father
moved back to Arizona and filed a Notice of Intent Not to Relocate and
requested that Mother’s Petition to Prevent Relocation be dismissed as
moot. Mother then filed both a Motion for Temporary Orders Regarding
Legal Decision Making and Parenting Time and an Amended Petition to
Prevent Relocation and to Modify Decision Making, Parenting Time and
Child Support (“Amended Petition”). In August 2023, the superior court
held a hearing and issued Temporary Orders based on the allegations in
Mother’s Amended Petition.

¶4 Mother then filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary
Orders in October 2023. After a November 2023 evidentiary hearing, the
court declined to issue new temporary orders, leaving the August 2023
temporary orders in place, but ordered that Father be permitted “video
parenting time calls with the child two times per week at 6:00 p.m. for 15
minutes on days as can be agreed upon by the parties[.]”

2
 HARTER v. MOLINA
Decision of the Court

¶5 In February 2024, Father filed a Petition for Contempt,
alleging Mother improperly denied him video parenting time calls and
parenting time and was making medical and educational decisions
inconsistent with the court’s orders. On April 2, 2024, the court conducted
a Resolution Management Conference (“RMC”) on Father’s contempt
petition, and set an evidentiary hearing for late May 2024, later rescheduled
without objection to July 2024.

¶6 Meanwhile, in late April 2024, Father filed an Emergency
Motion for Temporary Orders regarding legal decision-making and
parenting time, and child support. The court ordered an RMC on the
Motion for Temporary Orders in conjunction with the already-scheduled
evidentiary hearing on Father’s Petition for Contempt.

¶7 After the July 2024 evidentiary hearing, the court issued a
final order that denied Father’s Petition for Contempt. That final order also
altered the decree by ordering joint legal decision-making authority with
Mother having final say, establishing a parenting time plan, ordering Father
to pay Mother $771 per month in child support, and granting Mother a child
support arrearage judgment for $5,888. Father moved for reconsideration,
arguing that the court erred by entering temporary orders as final and
including an arrearage judgment, which the court denied.

¶8 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Arizona
Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶9 Father argues he was denied due process because he had no
notice that the July 2024 hearing would result in final orders on legal
decision-making, parenting time, and child support, and that the court
erred in awarding Mother arrearages. Father contends that he was not
provided reasonable notice that the July 2024 evidentiary hearing would
address or resolve anything other than his Contempt Petition. He argues
that, had he received proper notice of the scope of the hearing, he would
have requested additional time, called expert witnesses, and addressed all
relevant issues.

¶10 We review due process claims de novo. Savord v. Morton, 235
Ariz. 256, 260, ¶ 16 (App. 2014). The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause protects parents’ fundamental liberty interest in their children’s
“care, custody, and management.” Cruz v. Garcia, 240 Ariz. 233, 236, ¶ 11
(App. 2016) (citation omitted).

3
 HARTER v. MOLINA
Decision of the Court

¶11 “‘Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to
be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,’ as well as a
chance to offer evidence and confront adverse witnesses.” Id. (citations
omitted). “Because determinations of legal decision-making and parenting
time rest upon the best interests of the child, it is ‘necessary that the parties
have time to prepare and present all relevant evidence to the court’ before
such orders are modified.” Id. (citation omitted). “A family law judgment
rendered without notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard cannot
stand.” Id. at ¶ 12. Due process errors require reversal only if the party is
prejudiced by the error. Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 470, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).
As applied here, these legal directives show the final order against Father
cannot stand.

¶12 The order Father challenges was issued after the July 2024
evidentiary hearing. That evidentiary hearing was scheduled to address
Father’s February 2024 Petition for Contempt alleging Mother failed to
comply with court-ordered video calls, prevented Father from exercising
parenting time on a specific date, changed Child’s dentist against Father’s
wishes, and changed Child’s school without consulting Father.

¶13 On April 2, 2024, the superior court conducted an RMC on
Father’s Petition for Contempt and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on
that Petition in May 2024, allotting two hours of time. At the RMC, the court
told Father: “The only way you’re going to get quicker relief . . . is you can
always file a motion for temporary orders.”

¶14 Before the evidentiary hearing, Father filed a Motion for
Temporary Orders claiming, among other things, emergency circumstances
in that Mother placed Child in the care of an allegedly violent person and
requesting changes to decision-making, parenting time, and child support.
The court ordered an RMC to be held on Father’s Motion for Temporary
Orders at the same time as the already-scheduled evidentiary hearing on
his Petition for Contempt, stating:

This Court set an evidentiary hearing on Father’s Petition for
Contempt for May 30, 2024, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

At that time, the Court will hold a Resolution Management
Conference in conjunction with the Motion for Temporary
Orders to determine whether an additional hearing needs to
be set, or whether the allegations may be addressed in the
hearing set on that date.

4
 HARTER v. MOLINA
Decision of the Court

¶15 The court later continued the May 2024 evidentiary hearing
to late July 2024 after Mother sought a continuance that Father did not
object to and allotted two hours of time. There was no mention of any RMC
on Father’s Motion for Temporary Orders in that order resetting the
contempt hearing.

¶16 The evidentiary hearing took place on July 23, 2024. There
was no RMC or mention of Father’s Motion for Temporary Orders during
it. The court’s minute entry memorializing the evidentiary hearing stated:
“This is the time set for an Evidentiary Hearing regarding [Father’s] Petition
for Contempt RE: Parenting Time and Legal Decision-Making[,]” and did not
mention Father’s Motion for Temporary Orders or any other motion or
petition at issue.

¶17 In the superior court’s final order issued based on the July
2024 hearing, however, it states at the outset:

This matter came before the Court on the Amended Petition to
Prevent Relocation and to Modify Decision-Making, Parenting
Time and Child Support filed July 25, 2023 by Petitioner Ariel
Harter (“Mother”), the Petition for Contempt Re: Parenting Time
and Legal Decision-Making filed February 16, 2024 by
Respondent Jonathan Molina (“Father”), and the Counter-
Petition for Contempt and Enforcement of Child Support Order
filed by Mother on March 27, 2024. (emphasis added)

¶18 Although the final order states it considered Mother’s
Counter-Petition for Contempt and Enforcement of Child Support, we are
unable to locate it in the record. Father argues on appeal that it was never
served upon him, and he never received it. Mother mentioned her intention
to file a Counter-Petition at the April 2, 2024 RMC and Father told the court
he had not yet received it. Mother also discussed a Counter-Petition in her
Amended Separate Pre-Trial Statement. That discussion, however, does
not answer whether it was ever filed or served on Father or set for hearing—
actions that are not reflected in the record.

¶19 Apart from any Counter-Petition that Mother might have
filed, the court never set the July 2024 evidentiary hearing to include
Mother’s Amended Petition and never indicated its intention to rule on the
Amended Petition as a result of the July 2024 evidentiary hearing as Section
25-411(L) requires. See A.R.S. § 25-411(L) (In seeking to modify legal
decision-making or parenting time, the person filing such a motion “shall
give notice . . . to other parties to the proceeding” and the court “shall set a

5
 HARTER v. MOLINA
Decision of the Court

date for hearing on why the requested modification should not be
granted.”). And there were several opportunities to provide such notice,
including (1) the May 2, 2024 RMC, (2) the order setting the evidentiary
hearing on Father’s Petition for Contempt, (3) the order setting an RMC on
Father’s Motion for Temporary Orders, (4) the order resetting the
evidentiary hearing to July 23, 2024, and (5) the July 23, 2024 evidentiary
hearing itself.

¶20 Father therefore did not have reasonable notice that the court
intended to rule on Mother’s Amended Petition, or make a final ruling on
legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support at that hearing.
Given this lack of notice, the court could not properly consider or rule on
Mother’s Amended Petition nor Counter-Petition for Contempt at the July
2024 hearing. And despite telling the parties it would hold an RMC on
Father’s Motion for Temporary Orders at the evidentiary hearing on
Contempt, the court did not do so, nor did the court explicitly rule on
Father’s Motion for Temporary Orders.

¶21 It follows, then, that Father did not have sufficient notice that
the July 2024 evidentiary hearing would result in a final order on legal
decision-making, parenting time, and child support based on Mother’s
Amended Petition. See Cruz, 240 Ariz. at 237, ¶ 14. The course of the
litigation, consisting of the parties’ motions and the court’s own orders,
gave Father notice that his Petition for Contempt and potentially his Motion
for Temporary Orders were at issue at the evidentiary hearing but nothing
else. Therefore, he was not properly apprised of the pendency of the action
the court would rule on or afforded an adequate opportunity to present his
objections or claims. See In re Rts. to Use of Gila River, 171 Ariz. 230, 236
(1992) (citation omitted).

¶22 Father contends that although he was prepared for a
temporary orders hearing, he would have requested more than the two
hours allotted for the hearing and called expert witnesses had he received
sufficient notice that final orders would result. Father could not prepare for
and present evidence at the evidentiary hearing for a final ruling he was
unaware would follow. And Father cannot now move to modify the final
order for a year absent specific circumstances. A.R.S. § 25-411(A). Father
has therefore suffered prejudice. See Volk, 235 Ariz. at 470, ¶ 26.

¶23 Because we find that Father was denied due process, the
court’s order on legal decision making, parenting time, and child support—
including the arrearage judgment—is vacated. The ruling on contempt

6
 HARTER v. MOLINA
Decision of the Court

stands because we do not have appellate jurisdiction to address such a
challenge. See In re Marriage of Chapman, 251 Ariz. 40, 43, ¶ 10 (App. 2021).

CONCLUSION

¶24 We vacate the portions of the superior court’s order regarding
legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support, which includes
the arrearage judgment.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

7