Cited by

91 and 92; ¶ 23 (2003) (holding sanctions excluding evidence improperly restricted the court’s ability to consider the best interests of the child and should not have been imposed when other sanctions were available to vindicate the court’s authority).

in accordance with the best interests of the child.” ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”); see also State v. Leonardo, ex rel.

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

because [he] did not follow Court orders.” ¶ 16 (2003) (error to preclude evidence for “willful failure to comply” with a court order if it prevents the court from determining the best interests of the child).

at 155, ¶ 23 , 264 P.3d at 39 (concluding DCS's non-compliance with statutory directives did not justify placing a child's health and safety at risk) (citing Hays v. Gama , , 102-03, ¶ 18, , 698-99 (2003) ).

at 155, ¶ 23 (concluding DCS’s non-compliance with statutory directives did not justify placing a child’s health and safety at risk) (-03, ¶ 18 (2003)).

3 SANTORO v. SANTORO Decision of the Court ¶10 Father, argues the court erred because the letter contained information relevant to each of the statutory best interests factors that Arizona law required the court to consider in determining legal decision-making and parenting time.

§ 25–403.01(B) (court shall adopt a parenting plan that is consistent with the children’s best interests); ¶ 18 (2003) (children’s best interests are paramount in custody determinations).

-04, ¶¶ 22-23 (2003).3 ¶11 Here, the family court determined Mother’s witnesses’ testimony was relevant to Child’s best interests and found good cause for allowing them to testify.

¶ 21 (2003) (citation omitted).

She asserts, and we agree, ¶ 18 (2003) the court should admit any relevant evidence which goes to the children’s best interests.

If there is no good cause, barring the introduction of evidence not previously disclosed may be a reasonable sanction.”).5 D. The Court Was Not Required to Admit the Supplemental Report Simply Because It Concerned the Children’s Best Interests ¶14 Mother——argues that despite her disclosure violation, the superior court improperly excluded the Supplemental Report because “a trial court abuses its discretion when it excludes evidence that impacts a child’s best interests.” Mother asserts that Hays

See Reid, 222 Ariz. at 209-10, ¶¶ 19-20 (noting no law “has created an unalterable rule mandating waiver in all instances” and finding mechanically applying waiver principles in this setting prevents development “of the baseline information required for future petitions involving a child or children’s best interests”); ¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”) (collecting cases).

She cites Hays v. Gama , , DePasquale v. Superior Court (Thrasher) , , and In re Maricopa Cty.

Any sanction imposed, however, must be in accordance with the best interests of the child, see Rule 36, and "should generally be limited to 'the least possible power adequate to the end proposed,' " especially when the "end" affects an innocent third party like a child, see Hays v. Gama , , 102, 103-104, ¶¶ 17, 21-23, , 698, 699-700 (2003) (citations omitted) (holding that the superior court abused its discretion as a matter of law when it imposed evidentiary sanctions that unnecessarily impeded

¶ 18 (2003) (“We have repeatedly stressed that the child’s best interest is paramount in custody determinations.”).4 4 Mother suggests that the court’s failure to enforce the October 2012 and December 2013 orders constituted a modification of parenting time.

§§ 25-405(B) (2017), -406 (2017); ¶ 15, Mother has shown no error on this basis.

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

¶ 18 (2003); -65, ¶ 6 (2013).

–04, ¶¶ 22–23 (2003) (error to exclude evidence relevant to child’s best interest as a sanction).