Cited by

While it is true that the child’s best interests are the paramount consideration in legal decision-making cases, ¶ 18 (2003), that does not mean we can simply choose which statutory requirements we will follow.

C. Best-Interests Analysis ¶18 Mother further argues the court’s

If appellant raises a debatable issue, an appellee's 3 MCAFEE v. STROTHERS Decision of the Court failure to respond is generally treated as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), unless the case involves a child's best interests, ¶ 18 (2003)

If an appellant raises a debatable issue, an appellee's failure to respond is generally treated as a confession of reversible error, ¶ 9 (App. 2014), unless the case involves a child's best interests, ¶ 18 (2003)

¶ 18 (2003); ¶ 2 (App. 2002).

Noting that the best interests of minor children are at issue, –03, ¶ 18 (2003), we decline to dismiss the appeal and instead address Mother’s arguments to the extent possible, but we consider wholly unsupported arguments waived, –65, ¶ 6 (2013).

¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”); see Hoffman, 4 Ariz. App. at 85.

2 MAGILL v. LANN Decision of the Court (1966); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).

Enforcing his payment of $76,924.28 would have enabled refinancing, equitable division, and child’s best interests, avoiding the sale ( P.3d 695 (2003); Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974)).

Accordingly, and because the issues bear on Child’s best interests, –03 (2003), we decline to find Father’s arguments waived.

-04 ¶¶ 18-23 (2003) (reversing contempt sanctions that impacted best-interests determination); (declining to find arguments waived where interests of minor children were involved).

¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).

¶ 18 (2003) ("We have repeatedly stressed that the child's best interest is paramount in custody determinations.").

¶ 18 (2003) (explaining that in a custody case, a “child’s best interest is paramount”).

serve the ends of justice.”); ¶ 18 (2003) (citing Hoffman positively in a case where contempt sanctions would impact the child’s interests in a custody case).

¶ 12 (2002) (exercising discretion to address waived arguments); (stating waiver is discretionary where minor children are involved); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child's best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”) (citing cases).