Cited by

–65 ¶ 6 (2013) (considering arguments that lack adequate explanation as waived).

DISCUSSION ¶6 Mizell’s opening brief fails to comply with applicable rules for appellate briefs, including failing to provide “appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies.” ARCAP 13(a)(7); -65 ¶ 6 (2013).

See ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A); –65 ¶ 6 (2013) (arguments that are “not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority” are considered waived).

–65 ¶ 6 (2013); ¶ 8 4 IN RE DEPENDENCY AS TO C.T. Decision of the Court (App. 2022) (we “hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same standards as attorneys and do not aff

Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶4 “An appellant who fails to make a ‘bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules’ will waive issues and arguments ‘not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.’” ¶ 8 (App. 2022) (-65, ¶ 6 (2013)).

¶ 8 (App. 2022) (–65, ¶ 6 (2013)).

3 LOSACKER v. WELLE Decision of the Court ¶12 Lenore has not supported her arguments with “adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” ¶ 6 (2013); Ariz R. Civ.

An appellant who fails to make a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules” will waive arguments “not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” –65, ¶ 6 (2013).

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).

– 65 ¶ 6 (2013); ¶ 8 (App. 2022).

¶ 12 (2002); ¶ 6 (2013).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (deeming waived only those arguments the court is unable to “discern and address”).

See, -65 ¶ 6 (2013); Polanco v. Indus.

me that a judicial officer is impartial, and the party challenging the officer’s impartiality must prove bias or prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 22 (App. 2020) (citation 5 JOHNSON v. STATE, et al. Decision of the Court modified) ( ¶ 14 (2013)).

(App. 2022) (“An appellant who fails to make a ‘bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules’ will waive issues and arguments ‘not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.’”) (quoting In re 4 -65 ¶ 6 (2013)).

–65, ¶ 6 (2013) (stating that arguments are waived if not properly developed); ¶ 62 (App. 2009).

at ¶ 9 (–65 ¶ 6 (2013)).

at ¶ 9 (–65 ¶ 6 (2013)).

record.” “[W]e consider waived those arguments not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.” –65, ¶ 6 (2013).

“An appellant who fails to make a ‘bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with the rules’ will waive issues and arguments ‘not supported by adequate explanation, citations to the record, or authority.’” ¶ 8 (App. 2022) (–65, ¶ 6 (2013)).