Cited by

¶8 As the language of Rule 76 makes clear, an RMC “is not intended to resolve disputed issues but to find points of agreement in order to shorten or circumvent adversarial proceedings.” ¶ 15 (App. 2008); see also Ariz. R. Fam.

We relied then, as we do now, -25, ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2008), for the proposition that temporary orders are not appealable because they are preparatory in nature.

See ARFLP 47(j)(1); -25, ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2008).

¶ 10 (App. 2008) ("Special action jurisdiction is appropriate where there is no 'equally plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal.'") (quoting Ariz. R.P.

following entry of a final decree, judgment, or order”); -25, ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2008) (accepting review of a special action challenging a temporary order regarding child custody, noting the order was not appealable).1 II.

624-26 ¶ 10, -97 (App. 2008).

47(M) (stating a temporary order becomes ineffective and unenforceable following entry of a final judgment or order); –25, ¶ 10–11 (App. 2008) (accepting review of a special action challenging a temporary order regarding child custody, noting it was not appealable).3 ¶16 Finally, we reject Wife’s argument that the superior court erred by reconstructing the September 26, 2014 hearing when the electronic recording of the

–25, ¶ 10–11 (App. 2008); see Ariz. R.P.

-25, ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2008) (temporary orders not appealable).

-25, ¶¶ 10-11, -97 (App. 2008).

¶ 11, (holding temporary orders are not appealable).

A RMC is designed to “encourage the resolution of family law cases using non-adversarial means of alternative dispute resolution.” ¶ 15, (quoting ARFLP 66(A)).

¶ 10 , (quoting Ariz. R.P.