Cited by

§ 25-411(L), including “present[ing] detailed facts which are relevant to the statutory grounds for modification,”

See Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), (“[I]f affidavits are directly in opposition upon a substantial and crucial fact relevant to the grounds for [custody] modification, the court may not conduct a ‘trial by affidavit,’ attempting to weigh the credibility of the opposing statements.

3 SOLORZANO v. JENSEN Opinion of the Court (App. 2014) (stating that courts may not conduct a “trial by affidavit” if the “affidavits are directly in opposition upon any substantial and crucial fact relevant to the grounds for modification” ()).

The court’s determination as to whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.” ( ).

The court’s determination whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.” ( ); see also Vincent, 238 Ariz. at 155, ¶¶ 17-18.

Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca)

Before addressing best interests, however, “the court must initially determine whether a change of circumstances has occurred since the last custody order.”

See Pridgeon v. Superior Court , , 181, , 5 (1982) ("[I]f ...

Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca) , , 179, ; see also A.R.S.

Pridgeon v. Superior Court (LaMarca), (citation omitted).

–41, ¶ 43 (App. 2009); ¶ 7 (App. 2003); ¶ 6 (App. 2001).

[§] 25-403.” However, the law does not require a family court to find a “significant or extra ordinary circumstance[]” before modifying an existing parenting time order; a change may be made based upon any “material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child.” ().

The superior court abuses its discretion if no evidence supports its decision, or if it commits an error of law in exercising its discretion.

(holding a trial court abuses its discretion where there is “a clear absence of evidence to support its actions”) ( ).

The court’s discretionary determination regarding whether a change in circumstances has occurred “will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of evidence to support its actions.”