Cited by

A court abuses its discretion if “it commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion or ‘when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2012) ( ¶ 19 (App. 2009)).

¶¶ 13-14 (App. 2012); Savord, 235 Ariz. at 260, ¶ 20.

¶ 5 (App. 2014); ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

¶ 14 (App. 2012) (citing cases).

“We review the application of Arizona and federal law to the facts de novo.” Savord, 235 Ariz. at 260, ¶ 20 ( ¶ 14 (App. 2012)) (cleaned up).

BACKGROUND ¶3 “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.”

(orders of protection appealable under § 12-2101(A)(5)(b) “without regard to whether it involves a firearms prohibition” and without certification of finality under Ariz. R. Fam.

Carlson, 237 Ariz. at 387, ¶ 7 (“[This Court] will affirm the trial court’s ruling if the result was legally correct for any reason.” (cleaned up)); STATE v. WORKS Decision of the Court 535, ¶ 19 n.9 (App. 2012) (“Because [this Court] ha[s] resolved the appeal on other grounds, we need not address this issue.”).

This court construes the evidence in a light most favorable to affirming the order, ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (citing cases), giving “due regard to the trial court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses,” ¶ 16 (App. 2009).

–35, ¶¶ 15–17 (App. 2012) (holding that the superior court erred by issuing a Brady Indicator because it failed to make necessary findings under both the Arizona Firearms Law and 18 U.S.C.

An abuse of discretion occurs “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶5 Mother argues the superior court applied the wrong standard of proof when upholding the order of protection.1 We review the decision to continue an order of protection for an abuse of discretion, which may include “an error of law [committed] in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” ¶ 16 (App. 2012); ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

-34 ¶¶ 11-12 (App. 2012).

However, “[w]e review the application of Arizona and federal law to the facts de novo.” (quoting Bell v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., n.1 (App. 1995)).

Relevant facts are viewed “in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s ruling.” ¶ 2 (App. 2012).

The superior court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a court’s order granting an IAH for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 10 (App. 2002), which may occur if the court commits an error of law while reaching a discretionary conclusion or when the record lacks competent evidence to support the order, ¶ 14 (App. 2012).

“A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or ‘when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.’” ¶ 10 (App. 2014) ( ¶ 14 (App. 2012)).

The superior court abuses its discretion “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶9 those cases do not support Tovar’s argument that courts should conduct an “endangerment analysis” when making a section 13-910 determination.

The superior court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law or “when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.” ¶ 14 (App. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).