Scott v. Scott

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

KSENIYA VLADIMIROVNA SCOTT, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

PAUL DOUGLAS SCOTT, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0238 FC
FILED 11-13-2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2016-050991
The Honorable James Knapp, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Kseniya Vladimirovna Scott, Scottsdale
Petitioner/Appellant

Warner Angle Hallam Jackson & Formanek PLC, Phoenix
By Greg R. Davis
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
 SCOTT v. SCOTT
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Anni Hill Foster and Judge Veronika Fabian joined.

M O R S E, Judge:

¶1 Kseniya Vladimirovna Scott ("Mother")1 appeals from an
order denying her petition to enforce child support and granting the
petition to modify parenting time filed by Paul Douglas Scott ("Father").
We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Father have two children, one of whom is still a
minor. The parties divorced in 2017 and agreed to joint legal decision-
making authority and a parenting-time schedule. Father was ordered to
pay Mother $300 a month in child support.

¶3 In 2024, Mother petitioned the court to modify the parenting-
time plan and to enforce the child-support order, alleging that Father owed
her around $5,000 in past support. Four days later, Father sought to modify
the parenting-time plan, claiming the parties had not followed the
parenting-time schedule for several years and were having disputes
regarding it.

¶4 After a hearing, the court issued temporary orders modifying
parenting time to a 5-2-2-5 schedule conditioned on Mother providing
Father with her current address and proof of reliable transportation. The
court reduced Father's child-support obligation to $89 a month.

¶5 Following another hearing in February 2025, the court found
the parties' failure to follow the original parenting-time schedule
constituted a change in circumstances materially affecting the child. The
court also concluded that equal parenting time was no longer practical as
Mother had moved to North Carolina, was equivocal as to whether the
move was permanent, had no Arizona residence, and did not request long-

1 In recent filings, Mother uses the name Ksenya V. Verse. Until we
receive notice of a legal name change, we use her former name.

2
 SCOTT v. SCOTT
Decision of the Court

distance parenting time. Additionally, since the court had entered the 5-2-
2-5 parenting-time schedule, Mother estimated she had only used her
parenting time on five days. Having found a change in circumstances, the
court reduced Mother's parenting time to every other weekend with the
option of additional time if the parties agreed.

¶6 The court ordered Mother to pay $1,021 per month in child
support based on her monthly income of $5,000. The court found Mother
did not provide sufficient evidence of a child-support arrearage to grant her
claim for past support.

¶7 Mother timely appealed and we have jurisdiction under
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶8 We review orders modifying parenting time and child
support for an abuse of discretion. Smith v. Smith, 253 Ariz. 43, 45, ¶ 9 (App.
2022) (parenting time); Amadore v. Lifgren, 245 Ariz. 509, 513, ¶ 5 (App. 2018)
(child support). An abuse of discretion results if the "record is devoid of
competent evidence to support the decision." Amadore, 245 Ariz. at 513, ¶ 5.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding
the court's ruling and will affirm if reasonable evidence supports it. Smith,
253 Ariz. at 45, ¶ 9.

¶9 Father asks this Court to dismiss Mother's appeal because her
brief does not comply with ARCAP 13(a). He claims that Mother failed to
include a table of contents, table of citations, statement of facts, and record
citations. See ARCAP 13(a)(1), (2), and (5). Additionally, Mother failed to
provide legal or factual authority for most of her arguments. See ARCAP
13(a)(7).

¶10 We hold self-represented litigants to the same standard as
attorneys. Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, 83, ¶ 24 (2017). In our discretion,
we may treat failure to comply with ARCAP as a waiver of arguments or
issues. See Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 8 (App. 2022); Ritchie v.
Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). However, because waiver is a
discretionary doctrine, and a child's best interests are paramount, In re G.I.,
--- Ariz. ---, ---, ¶ 13, 567 P.3d 764, 767 (App. 2025), we exercise our
discretion and attempt to address Mother's arguments.

3
 SCOTT v. SCOTT
Decision of the Court

I. Parenting Time and Child Support.

¶11 An appellant is responsible for making certain that the record
on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents for this Court to
consider the issues raised on appeal. ARCAP 11(b)–(c). When a party fails
to do so, we presume the missing portions of the record would support the
trial court's findings. State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27,
30, ¶ 16 (App. 2003). Because Mother did not provide us with a transcript
from the hearing, we must presume that the missing record supports the
court's findings. See id.

¶12 The court made the necessary written findings that refer to
testimony and admitted exhibits to explain why its parenting-time orders
were in the child's best interests. See A.R.S. § 25-403(B); Nold v. Nold, 232
Ariz. 270, 273, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (explaining court must make specific
findings stating why its decision is in the child's best interests). In the
absence of a transcript, we presume that any missing record supports the
findings. See Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16.

¶13 Mother argues that the order is void for lack of jurisdiction
and that the court violated her due process rights by striking her
unspecified "emergency motions." However, "[w]e are not required to
assume the duties of an advocate and search voluminous records and
exhibits to substantiate an appellant's claims." Adams v. Valley Nat'l Bank of
Ariz., 139 Ariz. 340, 343 (App. 1984).

¶14 Based on the information in the record, the court properly
exercised jurisdiction over Father's post-decree motion to modify parenting
time. See A.R.S. § 25-411(A). Mother does not cite to any legal authority or
evidence in the record to support her contention that the court improperly
exercised jurisdiction over this matter or denied her emergency motions in
error. Accordingly, we affirm the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

¶15 Mother also contends that the court ignored evidence,
including a letter from the child stating his wishes. Mother submitted the
letter to this Court, but did not submit this evidence to the trial court, so we
cannot consider it. See Nelson v. Nelson, 164 Ariz. 135, 138 (App. 1990)
(stating appellate courts do not consider evidence that was not part of the
record before the trial court). Mother claims the child-support order is
based on false income information, ignores evidence of Father's wealth, and
uses "retaliatory logic." We are unconvinced. In response to a motion by
Mother to vacate the child-support judgment, the court stated that it used
Mother's prior testimony to determine her income because she failed to

4
 SCOTT v. SCOTT
Decision of the Court

provide updated or complete information about her income at the final
hearing. We presume that the record supports the court's use of Mother's
testimony in calculating her monthly income. See Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30,
¶ 16. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the child-support order.

II. Judicial and Attorney Misconduct.

¶16 Mother alleges judicial misconduct and bias because the court
ruled in favor of Father despite evidence of "harm and fraud." We presume
the trial judge is "free from bias." State v. Henry, 189 Ariz. 542, 546 (1997).
The court's ruling is supported by cited testimony and evidence and
complies with statutory requirements. We presume that the record would
support the judge's impartiality. See Burton, 205 Ariz. at 30, ¶ 16.

¶17 Mother also accuses opposing counsel of a litany of
misconduct. Because Mother failed to provide a copy of the transcript, we
presume it would reveal no improper conduct. Id. Although Mother refers
to several "federal filings" and other official complaints, these documents
are not properly in the record, so we do not consider them. See Nelson, 164
Ariz. at 138.

III. Remaining Arguments.

¶18 Mother argues that the order violates her constitutional rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mother did not provide a factual or legal
basis for these allegations. And we will not search the record to substantiate
these claims. See Adams, 139 Ariz. at 343.

¶19 Mother raised several new arguments in the reply brief.
However, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply
brief. See Johnson v. Provoyeur, 245 Ariz. 239, 243 n.5, ¶ 13 (App. 2018)
(stating issues first raised in a reply brief are waived). Furthermore, we take
no action on the pleading titled "Jurisdictional and Commercial Standing
Supplemental Record Filing" that Mother submitted while the appeal was
pending.

IV. Attorney Fees.

¶20 Father requests an award of attorney fees and costs on appeal,
citing A.R.S. § 25-324 and ARCAP 21. We have no current information
about the parties' financial circumstances and exercise our discretion to
deny Father's request for an award of fees. Because Father is the successful

5
 SCOTT v. SCOTT
Decision of the Court

party on appeal, he is entitled to recover costs upon compliance with
ARCAP 21. See A.R.S. § 12-342(A).

CONCLUSION

¶21 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

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

6