Cited by

(“[W]e are reluctant to reverse based on an implied confession of error when .

And contrary to cases from this court suggesting the discretionary nature of the doctrine, see, our supreme court has never recognized that we may arbitrarily waive a confession of error, see In re Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *2, ¶¶ 9-10 (Ariz. App. Mar.

Action No. J-65812-1, (“[W]e may, in our discretion, treat the lack of a response as a confession of error.”); (Failure to file an answering brief could be a confession of error.); ¶ 4, n.3 (App. 2014) (similar); McDowell Mountain Ranch Cmty.

Action No. J-65812-1, (“[W]e may, in our discretion, treat the lack of a response as a confession of error.”); (citing Pinal County Juv.

(citing No. S-389, 151 Ariz. at 564).

In our discretion we decline to treat Mother’s failure as a concession of reversible error, and instead consider the merits of Father’s appeal to the extent he developed his arguments

In our discretion we decline to treat her failure as a concession of reversible error, and instead consider the merits of Father’s appeal

ANALYSIS ¶6 As an initial matter, we exercise our discretion and determine mother’s failure to file an answering brief on appeal was not an implied confession of error, especially given the superior court “correctly applied the law.” (A party’s 2 RODRIGUEZ v. RODRIGUEZ Decision of the Court failure to file a brief may be treated as an implied confession of error, but “this doctrine is discretionary,” and this court is “reluctant to reverse b

(expressing reluctance to reverse upon an “implied confession of error” where the trial court correctly applied the law).

In our discretion we decline to treat Mother’s failure as a concession of reversible error, and instead consider the merits of Father’s appeal