Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 19-0535 FC
07-16-2020
In re the Matter of: JESSENIA TENA ALDRETE, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MOISES GONZALEZ, Respondent/Appellee.
COUNSEL Jessenia Tena Aldrete, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant Saldivar & Associates PLLC, Phoenix By Kristian Morales Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2011-004541 FC2011-093375 (Consolidated)
The Honorable Justin Beresky, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Jessenia Tena Aldrete, Phoenix
Petitioner/Appellant
Saldivar & Associates PLLC, Phoenix
By Kristian Morales
Counsel for Respondent/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
HOWE, Judge:
¶1 Jessenia Aldrete ("Mother") appeals the family court's order establishing legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Mother and Moises Gonzalez ("Father") married in September 2003 and divorced in April 2012. The parties' decree of dissolution designated Mother as the primary residential parent of their three children, awarded her sole legal custody, and awarded Father parenting time that consisted of every other weekend from Thursday after school until Sunday afternoon. Father was also ordered to pay child support and would claim two children as eligible dependents for the 2012 tax year and one child as a dependent for the 2013 tax year. The decree then provided that the parties were to repeat this pattern of claiming tax deductions for the years that followed.
¶3 In April 2016, the parties agreed to equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making authority with Mother having final decision-making authority. In March 2019, Father petitioned to modify legal decision making, parenting time, and child support. He then petitioned to enforce parenting time.
¶4 In April 2019, the parties attended a resolution management conference where the court ordered the parties to begin following a "5-2-2-5 parenting plan." The court then held an evidentiary hearing in June 2019 and found that Mother did not take Father's wishes into consideration when making important decisions about the children. The court also noted Father's testimony that he had been "prevented from fully participating in school events and medical appointments with the children because Mother listed her husband as the children's father." The court then ordered that the
parties share joint legal decision-making authority with neither party having final decision-making authority.
¶5 The court also affirmed its order that Father and Mother share equal parenting time. The parenting plan provided for an alternating holiday schedule and awarded the parties yearly-alternating parenting time for birthdays and each party the option of two weeks of uninterrupted parenting time during the summer. The court further ordered that, beginning 2019, Father claim two of the three children as eligible dependents for tax purposes each year and Mother claim the youngest child. Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
1. Legal Decision-Making and Parenting Time
¶6 Mother challenges the family court's legal decision-making and parenting time order, which we review for abuse of discretion. See Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469, 471 ¶ 4 (App. 2018). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court misapplies the law in reaching its decision or when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the court's decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 51 ¶ 19 (App. 2009).
¶7 The court must determine legal decision-making and parenting time in the best interests of the children, considering all factors enumerated in A.R.S. § 25-403(A). Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102 ¶ 18 (2003). If the issues of legal decision-making or parenting time are contested, the court must make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the children. A.R.S. § 25-403(B).
¶8 Mother did not provide a trial transcript. As an appellant, Mother "is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for [this Court] to consider the issues raised on appeal." Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995). Without a transcript, we must presume that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings and conclusions. See id. Furthermore, the record shows that the court considered all the factors relevant to the children's best interests and that Mother did not submit a proposed parenting plan. As such, the court did not abuse its discretion or misapply the law in affirming Mother's parenting time or modifying her legal decision-making authority.
2. Tax Deductions for Minor Children
¶9 Mother argues next that the court erred in allowing Father to claim two children as eligible dependents every year. With no citation to authority, she maintains that the court should have ordered that Father could claim two children in even numbered years and that Mother could claim two children in odd-numbered years. We review a family court's award of child support for an abuse of discretion and accept its findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Engal v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 510 ¶ 21 (App. 2009).
¶10 The family court's child support worksheet indicates that Father's proportional share of the parties' combined income was 66.27%. Considering this disparity in income, the family court was within its discretion to allocate tax deductions as it did. See A.R.S. § 25-320 app. ("Guidelines") § 27 ("All the federal and state exceptions applicable to the minor children shall be allocated between the parents . . . in a manner that allows each parent to claim allowable federal dependency exemptions proportionate to adjusted gross income . . . .").
CONCLUSION
¶11 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. In our discretion, we decline to award attorneys' fees. As the prevailing party, however, Father is entitled to costs on appeal upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.