Patterson v. jackson/state

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

DEANNA ELLEN PATTERSON,
Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

DAVID ISAIAH JACKSON,
Respondent/Appellee,

and

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, Third-Party/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0531 FC
FILED 02-12-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yavapai County
No. S130DO202500206
The Honorable Joseph P. Goldstein, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

APPEARANCES

DeAnna Ellen Patterson, Prescott
Petitioner/Appellant

PATTERSON v. JACKSON/STATE
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which
Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

W I L L I A M S, Judge:

¶1 DeAnna Patterson (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s
child support order. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and David Jackson (“Father”) have one child in
common. In March 2025, the State petitioned to establish child support for
the minor child. 1

¶3 Two months later, both Mother and Father testified at an
evidentiary hearing, but neither parent offered any documents or exhibits
into evidence. The superior court calculated Father’s monthly child support
obligation to be $422 per month, exclusive of past support owed.

¶4 Father requested a downward deviation from that amount,
citing health reasons impacting his ability to work. The court found that a
downward deviation from the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet was
appropriate and “in the best interest of the child[] . . . when considering
[F]ather’s bills and ability to work, including [medical] history.”
Consequently, the court ordered Father to pay $350 per month, plus an
additional $50 per month for past support owed.

¶5 Mother moved the superior court to reconsider its award. The
court declined. Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article
6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Father failed to file an answering brief, which we may treat as
a concession of error. See Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191 (App. 1980).
However, because this case involves a child’s best interests, and no
debatable issue exists, we will not assume a concession of error here and

1 The State filed a notice of nonparticipation in this appeal.

2

PATTERSON v. JACKSON/STATE
Decision of the Court

instead address the appeal on its merits. See id.; Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99,
102, ¶ 18 (2003).

¶7 We review child support awards for an abuse of discretion.
Nickel v. Potter, 256 Ariz. 323, 326, ¶ 9 (App. 2023). A superior court abuses
its discretion if its order lacks a competent evidentiary basis. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999).

¶8 Mother first argues the evidence does not support the
superior court’s child support deviation because Father provided no
documentation of his medical condition. To the extent Mother suggests that
A.R.S. § 25-320 and Arizona Child Support Guidelines § 5(E) required
documentation of Father’s medical condition, we reject the argument.
Neither the statute nor the guideline expressly requires written
documentation, in lieu of testimony, when deviating from a monthly child
support calculation.

¶9 Mother further contends insufficient evidence supports the
superior court’s child support award, but she failed to provide transcripts
of the evidentiary hearing as Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure
11(c) requires. “If the appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment,
finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the
evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all
proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding, or
conclusion.” ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B). Because we have no transcript to review,
we presume “the missing portions of the record would support the trial
court’s findings and conclusions.” State ex rel. Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 30, ¶ 16 (App. 2003).

¶10 As for Mother’s argument that Father’s testimony was not
credible, we cannot reweigh credibility determinations on appeal. Lehn v.
Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019).

¶11 Finally, Mother argues the superior court abused its
discretion in denying her motion to reconsider the child support award in
light of new evidence she obtained regarding Father’s work hours. But the
court was not required to consider this new evidence because Mother never
explained why she could not have presented it at the evidentiary hearing.
See RT Auto. Ctr., Inc. v Westlake Servs., LLC, 253 Ariz. 91, 95, ¶ 12 (App.
2022) (“We typically do not consider matters raised for the first time in a
motion for reconsideration unless the facts or arguments presented were
not available when the court entered the challenged ruling.”). Moreover,
Mother’s primary argument in her motion to reconsider was that Father’s

3

PATTERSON v. JACKSON/STATE
Decision of the Court

testimony supporting a deviation was not credible absent “up-to-date
medical documentation or proof of treatment.” Having already addressed
that argument, supra ¶ 8, Mother has shown no error.

CONCLUSION

¶12 We affirm.

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

4