Cited by

And it would undermine the superior court’s authority “to control the courtroom and trial proceedings.” ¶ 31 (App. 2007).

To demonstrate good cause for an absence, a parent must show that “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect exists.” ¶ 16 (App. 2007).

To show good cause, a parent must show that “mistake inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect exists.” ¶ 16 (App. 2007).

¶10 On appeal, the court of appeals ordered supplemental briefing regarding (1) whether Rule 64(C) violates due process; (2) whether the court should reconsider Christy A. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security , , ; and (3) whether, to the extent Christy A. remains controlling law, a meritorious defense is required to set aside Rule 64(C) accelerated hearing judgments.

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 23 (App. 2007) ( ); see also Ariz. R. Fam.

Decision of the Court ¶¶ 25, 28 (App. 2007) (“[W]here the parent fails to appear but is still represented by counsel, the court may proceed in that parent’s absence because his or her rights will be protected by the presence and participation of counsel.”); see also Brenda D., 243 Ariz. at 440, ¶ 3 (holding the absent parent retains

Sec., and hold that the parent’s burden of demonstrating good cause in this setting does not include providing evidence of a meritorious defense.

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (); see also Brenda D. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, ¶ 41 (2018) (citing Christy A.’s discussion to support the proposition that definition of “good cause” in civil defaults relating to finding a waiver of rights is “instr

Sec., (addressing merits of motion to set aside entry of default and default judgment); Don L. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 22 (App. 2007) (citing Mara M. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007); see Willie G., 211 Ariz. at 234, ¶ 13 (“Determining what constitutes good cause for a party’s failure to appear at a hearing is largely discretionary.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (concluding that the juvenile court “may set aside an entry of default” in “parental cases” if the parent shows excusable neglect and a meritorious defense).

Sec., ¶¶ 22, 24 (App. 2007).

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (–86 (1982)).

Sec., ¶ 31 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶¶ 13–14 (App. 2007).

Sec., ¶ 16 (App. 2007) (citation omitted).

Sec., ¶ 24 (App. 2007) (holding that a parent who has failed to appear retains the right to participate and testify regarding best interests).