Cited by

¶ 17 (App. 2021); ¶ 5 (App. 2002) (findings required whether granting or denying petition).

¶ 3 (App. 2002) (“We will not disturb a trial court’s decision on child custody absent a clear abuse of discretion.”) (citation omitted); ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (“On appeal, we will not disturb the family court’s custody or parenting time orders absent an abuse of discretion.”) (citatio

See, ¶ 2 (App. 2002) (citing cases).

While we typically treat an appellee’s lack of response as a confession of error, we may decline to do so when a child’s best interests are at issue, ¶ 2 (App. 2002), as is the case here.

While we may regard a party’s failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error, “we are not required to do so.” ¶ 2 (App. 2002).

¶ 17 (App. 2021) (as amended); ¶ 5 (App. 2002).

¶ 2 (App. 2002) (citing ARCAP 15(c)).

¶ 2 (App. 2002) (citing Ariz. R. Civ.

¶ 2 (App. 2022) (declining to view failure to file answering brief as confession of error where a child’s best interests were involved).

See, ¶ 5, (App. 2002); Downs, 206 Ariz. at 501, ¶ 19; Christopher K., 233 Ariz. at 301, ¶ 19; DeLuna, 247 Ariz. at 424–25, ¶¶ 16–19.

¶ 2 (App. 2 SOSA v. PARRA Decision of the Court 2002).

¶ 3 (App. 2002); -91, ¶ 8 (App. 2018).

SMITH v. SMITH Decision of the Court ¶6 Although this court has discretion to consider Mother’s failure to file an answering brief as conceding error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); we decline to do so, given that the best interests of the children are involved, ¶ 2 (App. 2002)

Although this court has discretion to consider Chavez’ failure to file an appropriate answering brief as conceding error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); we decline to do so here, see, ¶ 2 (App. 2002); -85 (1966).