ABALLE SHAFFER

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

AZCARES NO. 005010729000
STATE OF ARIZONA, EX REL, DES
ANNE MELROSE ABALLE, Petitioners/Appellees,

v.

STEPHEN RICHARD SHAFFER, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 26-0183 FC
FILED 10-15-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2025-003163
The Honorable David J. Keys-Nunes, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Stephen Richard Shaffer, Scottsdale
Respondent/Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Marika J. Hodge
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

ABALLE, et al. v. SHAFFER
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey and Judge Michael J. Brown joined.

P A T O N, Judge:

¶1 Stephen Shaffer (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s
judgment awarding past child support to Ann Melrose Aballe (“Mother”).
We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Father’s child was born in November 2010. In
August 2025, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (“State”) filed
an action seeking to establish Father’s child support obligation on Mother’s
behalf. Father participated in the proceedings up until the parties’ court-
ordered meet and confer in November 2025. At that meeting, Mother and
Father agreed on Father’s income from 2022-2025, that there had been no
direct child support payments from Father to Mother, and Mother’s income
for future child support. Father disputed Mother’s 2022-2025 income for
past child support calculations, arguing she “previously had a higher
earning potential,” and the parties asked the court to schedule a trial-setting
conference, which it set for December 2025.

¶3 Father did not appear at the December trial-setting
conference. The superior court then scheduled a virtual evidentiary
hearing for January 2026 and ordered Mother to file an Affidavit of
Financial Information (“AFI”), which she did. In her AFI, Mother disclosed
her past and current income. Regarding her past income, she noted she left
a 2023 job due to mental health issues.

¶4 Father failed to appear at the January 2026 hearing. Mother
provided Father’s phone number to court staff who attempted to contact
him without success. The superior court found Father had notice of the
hearing and proceeded in his absence. Mother testified, and the court
calculated Mother’s income for 2022-2025 based on her testimony. The
court then entered judgment against Father, requiring him to pay Mother
$8,362 in past child support.

2

ABALLE, et al. v. SHAFFER
Decision of the Court

¶5 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised
Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Sections 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Father argues the superior court’s past child support award
violated his due process rights because he lacked actual notice of the
December 2025 trial-setting conference and January 2026 evidentiary
hearing. He also contends the superior court erred by not accounting for
Mother voluntarily reducing her 2022-2025 pay and undisclosed financial
gifts Mother’s parents provided to her during those years in its past child
support award.

¶7 We note at the outset that Father’s opening brief does not
comply with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13(a)
because he does not cite the record or legal authority to support his
argument in his brief. As a result, the State urges us to consider Father’s
arguments waived. See ARCAP 13(a).

¶8 An appellant’s opening brief must include an argument
containing its contentions about the issues presented, supported by
citations to the record and legal authority. ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). We hold
self-represented litigants to the same standards as attorneys. Ramos v.
Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 8 (App. 2022). We may find that a party who
fails to comply with ARCAP 13 has waived their arguments. See Ritchie v.
Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). Waiver, however, is
discretionary and because the best interests of a child are at stake, we will
address the merits of Father’s appeal. See Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273,
¶ 10 (App. 2013).

I. The superior court properly concluded that Father had adequate
notice of the proceedings.

¶9 Father acknowledges he received mailed notices of court
proceedings in this matter through the November 2025 meet and confer
with Mother, but claims he did not receive notice of the December 2025
trial-setting conference and January 2026 hearing. He contends that his due
process rights were violated because he would have appeared and
presented evidence which could have changed the court’s past child
support calculation.

¶10 Where a party says that it did not receive notice of a hearing,
it alleges a due process violation and we review due process challenges de

3

ABALLE, et al. v. SHAFFER
Decision of the Court

novo. Solorzano v. Jensen, 250 Ariz. 348, 350, ¶ 9 (App. 2020). “Due process
entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner.” Curtis v. Richardson, 212 Ariz. 308, 312,
¶ 16 (App. 2006). “Notice is sufficient for due process purposes if it is
‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested
parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections’ or claims.” Matter of Rts. to Use of Gila River, 171
Ariz. 230, 236 (1992) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339
U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Due process does not require actual notice if notice is
reasonably calculated to apprise the party of an action. See Mullane, 339
U.S. at 314-15.

¶11 Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure (“ARFLP”) 43.1(j)(1)
requires the clerk of court to distribute minute entries to all parties via “U.S.
mail, electronic mail, or attorney drop box.” We presume that parties
receive properly mailed documents, including those mailed through the
U.S. mail. See Lee v. State, 218 Ariz. 235, 239, ¶ 19 (2008); State v. Church, 175
Ariz. 104, 108 (App. 1993) (“We believe that it is more likely than not that a
mailed notice will be delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.”); see also In re
Marriage of Vargas v. Vargas, No. 1 CA-CV 24-0287, 2024 WL 4751554, at *2,
¶ 14 (Ariz. App. Nov. 12, 2024) (mem. decision) (“Even if [the appellant]
did not ‘see’ the . . . order, we presume properly mailed documents are
delivered to the recipient.”). Moreover, ARFLP 9(b) provides that “[p]arties
and counsel are responsible for knowing the status of their cases and
keeping the court informed of material changes in the status of their cases.”
ARFLP 9(b); see also Roll v. Janca, 22 Ariz. App. 335, 337 (1974) (“A party has
a duty to take legal steps to protect his own interests.”).

¶12 Father actively participated in this case through the
November meet and confer and admitted he received mailed notices both
before and after the December and January proceedings. We presume that
Father received this mail, considering his address was included on the front
page of every document, and remains the same in his Notice of Appeal. See
Lee, 218 Ariz. at 239, ¶ 19; Church, 175 Ariz. at 108. Under these
circumstances, the superior court could have reasonably concluded that its
notice was reasonably calculated to apprise Father of the proceedings.
Mullane, 229 U.S. at 314.

¶13 Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 9(b) further required
Father to keep himself apprised of the case docket, including whether the
court scheduled any future hearings. He contested Mother’s past income
at the November 2025 meet and confer and knew that the superior court
would resolve that dispute at a subsequent hearing; in fact, he requested as

4

ABALLE, et al. v. SHAFFER
Decision of the Court

much as a party to the “Notice of Partial Agreement and Request for Trial
Setting Conference” filed in the court. The onus was therefore on Father to
discover when the superior court scheduled that hearing, even if he did not
receive actual notice through the mail. Roll, 22 Ariz. App. at 337. Because
Father received procedurally adequate notice of the proceedings, his due
process claim fails.

II. The superior court did not abuse its discretion in calculating
Father’s past child support award.

¶14 Father argues the superior court erred in calculating his past
child support obligation to Mother. He contends Mother did not tell the
superior court that she received “repeated financial gifts from [her] parents
. . . to pay [her] mortgage and other bills” when considering her 2022-2025
income. Father also claims that the superior court should have considered
Mother’s income as if she had worked full time from 2022-2025, alleging
she voluntarily chose to work part time during that period.

¶15 “Child support awards are within the discretion of the trial
court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that
discretion.” Simpson v. Simpson, 224 Ariz. 224, 225, ¶ 4 (App. 2010). We
accept the family court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.
Hoobler v. Hoobler, 254 Ariz. 130, 140, ¶ 22 (App. 2022). We do not reweigh
evidence on appeal and defer to the superior court’s judgment on the
credibility of witnesses. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 52, ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

¶16 Father contends that Mother verbally told him that her
parents gifted her money in excess of $1000/month from 2022-2025. He
claims the superior court should have considered those recurring gifts in its
past child support calculation. See A.R.S. § 25-320 app. § II.A.1.b. But Father
did not include the evidentiary hearing transcript in the record on appeal.
When a party fails to include transcripts or necessary documents for us to
consider issues raised on appeal, we presume they support the court’s
findings and conclusions. See Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995); see
also ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B). Given this assumption, we cannot say the superior
court abused its discretion in its past child support award.

¶17 Father also argues the superior court should have applied a
full-time salary to Mother’s 2022-2025 income because she voluntarily chose
to work part time during those years. The superior court found Mother’s
testimony that she could not work full time due to her mental health issues
credible. As noted above, Father did not include the transcript in the record
on appeal, so we presume it supports the court’s findings. See Baker, 183

5

ABALLE, et al. v. SHAFFER
Decision of the Court

Ariz. at 73. And, in any event, we defer to the superior court’s credibility
findings regarding Mother’s past ability to work. Hurd, 223 Ariz. at 52, ¶
16. Because the superior court’s findings were not clearly erroneous,
Father’s claims fail. Hoobler, 254 Ariz. at 140, ¶ 22.

CONCLUSION

¶18 We affirm.

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

6