Walls-Bey v. Austin

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

JOHNNY RAY WALLS-BEY,
Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

ALEXIS JORDAN AUSTIN,
Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0429 FC
No. 1 CA-CV 25-0447 FC
FILED 01-28-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Nos. FC2025-001632, FC2025-001405
Phoenix Municipal Court No. 5906322
The Honorable Bradley H. Astrowsky, Judge
The Honorable Gary L. Popham Jr., Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Johnny Ray Walls-Bey, Phoenix
Petitioner/Appellant

Alexis Austin, Hopkinsville, Kentucky
Respondent/Appellee
 WALLS-BEY v. AUSTIN
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 In two consolidated cases, Johnny Ray Walls-Bey (Father)
challenges orders dismissing his petitions (1) for an order of protection
against Alexis Jordan Austin (Mother) and (2) to establish legal decision-
making, parenting time and child support. Because Father has shown no
error, the orders are affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Father and Mother have three young minor children together,
Z.W.B., A.W.B. and E.A. In December 2024, Father filed a petition for an
order of protection (the OOP case) against Mother in Phoenix Municipal
Court. Later that day, the court issued an ex parte order of protection
prohibiting Mother from having contact with Father except through
attorneys, legal process and court hearings. After Mother was served with
the order in February 2025, she requested an evidentiary hearing. The
Phoenix Municipal Court set that hearing for April 18, 2025.

¶3 On April 10, 2025, Father filed a family court petition to
establish legal decision-making, parenting time and child support (the FC
case) in Maricopa County Superior Court. His FC case petition noted a
pending family court case in Kentucky involving the same parties and
issues. Over the next few days, in the FC case, the superior court issued
rulings: (1) questioning whether Arizona had jurisdiction given the
pending Kentucky case and (2) setting an April 22, 2025 hearing to
determine if Kentucky would relinquish jurisdiction.

¶4 Meanwhile, because of the FC case, the Phoenix Municipal
Court vacated the April 18, 2025 hearing in the OOP case and transferred
that case to superior court. The superior court then set a May 6, 2025
evidentiary hearing in the OOP case.

¶5 In the FC case, neither Mother nor Father appeared, nor were
represented, at the April 30, 2025 hearing. However, the Kentucky Judge
assigned to the family court proceedings there did appear remotely. Noting

2
 WALLS-BEY v. AUSTIN
Decision of the Court

Father’s failure to appear, and adding that “Kentucky has an open case in
which it has determined Kentucky is the home state,” the superior court
found Father abandoned his FC case petition and dismissed it. Father
moved to reconsider and reinstate the FC case and then filed a notice of
appeal. The superior court then denied the motion to reconsider and
reinstate, stating it lost jurisdiction after the filing of the notice of appeal.

¶6 Back in the OOP case, Father failed to appear at the May 6,
2025 evidentiary hearing. Finding Father had notice and failed to appear
without good cause shown, the court dismissed the OOP case. As with the
FC case, in the OOP case, Father filed a motion to reconsider and reinstate,
followed by a notice of appeal. The record reveals no order addressing his
post-dismissal motion.

¶7 This court has jurisdiction over Father’s timely appeals under
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1) (2026).1

DISCUSSION

¶8 Father’s opening briefs fail to comply with ARCAP 13,
including failing to cite “legal authorities and appropriate references to the
portions of the record on which [he] relies.” ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). Such
deficiencies typically constitute a waiver. See Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519,
523 ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2022) (citing cases). Father also failed to provide any
transcripts from the hearings in the FC or OOP cases, and this court will
presume a missing transcript would have supported the superior court’s
rulings. See Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491, 495 ¶ 11 (App. 2014) (citing
cases). Although Mother filed an answering brief in the appeal in the FC
case, she failed to do so in the OOP case, which also typically constitutes a
confession of error. See Nydam v. Crawford, 181 Ariz. 101, 101 (App. 1994)
(citing cases). Notwithstanding these deficiencies, because the best interests
of young children are at issue, the court looks to the merits of Father’s
arguments on appeal.

I. The Superior Court Properly Dismissed the FC Case.

¶9 Father makes various factual allegations regarding Mother
and the children in the FC case. In doing so, however, he fails to assert that
those issues are not, or cannot be, addressed in the pending family court
case in Kentucky involving the same parties and issues. Under the Uniform

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
 WALLS-BEY v. AUSTIN
Decision of the Court

Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted in
Arizona and Kentucky, the home state of a child has jurisdiction to address
an initial child custody determination. A.R.S. § 25-1031(A)(1); accord Ky.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.822(1)(a) (West 2025). Here, the record shows that
Kentucky is the home state for the children, A.R.S. § 25-1002(7); accord Ky.
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.800(7) (West 2025), and that the Kentucky court issued
the initial child custody determination for the children, A.R.S. § 25-1002(8);
accord Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.800(8) (West 2025). Accordingly, Kentucky
has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction of custody determinations, absent a
statutory exception. A.R.S. § 25-1032(A); accord Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
403.824(1) (West 2025).

¶10 Given the pre-existing custody determination by the
Kentucky court, it has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction unless: (1) the
Kentucky court relinquishes jurisdiction or (2) all participants move out of
Kentucky. A.R.S. § 25-1033; accord Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 403.826 (West 2025).
Neither of those conditions have been met, meaning the Kentucky court
continues to have exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, apart from this UCCJEA
obstacle, Father has failed to show that the superior court erred in
concluding that his failure to appear at the properly noticed April 30, 2025
hearing, without good cause shown, was error. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P.
76.2.

¶11 For these reasons, on this record, Father has shown no error
in the superior court dismissing his FC case petition.

II. The Superior Court Properly Dismissed the OOP Case.

¶12 Father contends that the court erred in dismissing the OOP
case because “[i]f neither party appears for the contested hearing, and each
party received actual notice, the hearing will be vacated, and the protective
order will remain in effect.” Ariz. R. Prot. Order P. 38(f)(3). But the record
shows Mother appeared at the May 6, 2025 evidentiary hearing in the OOP
case. In those circumstances (where defendant appears and plaintiff fails to
appear without good cause shown), “the protective order will be
dismissed.” Ariz. R. Prot. Order P. 38(f)(2). That is precisely what happened
here.

¶13 Father received notice of the May 6, 2025 contested hearing.
The record provided indicates that, on April 25, 2025, Father was given
notice of the hearing via email and voicemail that included the hearing date,
time, location and arrival instructions. Moreover, Father notes in his motion
for reconsideration in superior court that the person watching his children

4
 WALLS-BEY v. AUSTIN
Decision of the Court

was late, which caused him to arrive at 9:06 a.m., more than 20 minutes after
the time scheduled for the hearing. In filing that motion, Father conceded
he had advance notice of the scheduled hearing. On this record, Father has
shown no error in the superior court dismissing the OOP case.

¶14 Father next avows that the evidence submitted to the court
via the CaseCenter portal before the hearing “proved by a preponderance
of [the] evidence,” that the court “should have continued the court date to
another date instead of dismissing the case.” In support of this, Father
alleges Mother failed to appear and “never provided any documentation,
exhibits, answers, or evidence, in re[gard] of her defense.” Again, however,
Mother appeared at the hearing. To the extent Father argues the court
should have weighed the evidence differently, this court does not reweigh
evidence on appeal and gives “due regard to the [superior] court’s
opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Hurd v. Hurd, 223
Ariz. 48, 52 ¶ 16 (App. 2009). The record provided supports the superior
court’s ruling.

¶15 Finally, Father’s equal protection arguments do not show
error. Equal protection “generally requir[es] the law treat all similarly
situated persons alike.” State v. Panos, 239 Ariz. 116, 118 ¶ 7 (App. 2016)
(citation omitted). There is nothing in the record to suggest that the court
treated Father differently than Mother.

CONCLUSION

¶16 The rulings are affirmed.

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

5