Cited by

¶ 18 (2003) (noting that the best interests of the child are the “paramount” consideration in child custody cases).

Mother asserts that the 1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”) (); see also Mayberry v. Stambaugh, 1 CA-CV 23-0289 FC, 2024 WL 1282653, at *1 ¶ 5 (Ariz. App. March 26, 2024) (mem.

–04, ¶¶ 18–23 (2003), our supreme court held that sanctions that prevented the trial court from considering relevant evidence in a custody proceeding "unnecessarily interfered with [the court's] duty to consider the child's best interests in determining custody."

-04 ¶¶ 18-23 (2003) (reversing contempt sanctions against mother that impacted best- interests determination); (declining to apply court rule making mother’s refusal to file answering brief a default where doing so impacted best-interests determination).

¶ 18 (2003) (best interest of the child is the paramount concern in family court cases).

¶ 18 (2003) (child’s best interests 1 Father briefly contends that “[f]ederal law also protects rehabilitation records from disclosure,” citing 42 U.S.C.

(noting that a court in a custody proceeding "may draw a negative inference from the father's" refusal to answer questions about drug use); ¶ 23 (2003) (noting superior court's contempt sanctions must not impact "ability to consider the best interests of the child").

¶ 18 (2003) (stating that the children’s best interests are paramount).

Above all else, the primary consideration in custody determinations is the best interests of the children, ¶ 18 (2003), and any attempt, through agreement or otherwise, which circumvents this paramount consideration requires a closer look.

§ 25-408(B); ¶¶ 17–18 (2003).

¶20 for the proposition that the court owes a duty “to hear all competent evidence which may be offered” in child custody proceedings.

because on this record, the court precluded evidence that was potentially significant to its duty to consider the children’s best interests.

§ 25-403; ¶ 18 (2003) (stating that “the child’s best interest is paramount”).

–03, ¶ 18 (2003) (superior court should consider whether sanctions “unnecessarily interfere[] with its duty to consider the child’s best interests in determining custody”).

(“the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).