Cited by

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)

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).

¶ 12 (2002) (exercising discretion to address waived arguments); (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.”) (collecting cases).

¶24 For the first time on appeal, asserting the court failed to consider the children’s best interests when it denied her motion for relief.

-03 ¶ 18 (2003), (stating that application of implied confession of error should not be mandatory in cases involving minor children).

pinions on medical care and educational decisions.” Specifically, Father argues the order “violates Hays 8 CAMPBELL v. NEWELL Decision of the Court v. Gama because the court imposed a constructed sanction on Father that will have a significant impact on the child.” ¶26 is not relevant because the court did not sanction Father.