Cited by

¶ 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.

¶ 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).