Alvarez's failure to file an answering brief could be regarded as a confession of reversible error, but because the record before us is complete, we will consider the case on its merits. See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 657 P.2d 425 (App. 1982) (citation omitted); see also Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 616 n.1, ¶ 4, 277 P.3d 811, 813 n.1 (App. 2012). DISCUSSION

Big D. Constr. Corp. v. Ariz. Ct. of Appeals, 163 Ariz. 560, 563, 789 P.2d 1061, 1064 (1990). ¶10 Relying on Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 618, ¶ 12, 277 P.3d 811, 815 (App. 2012), Father contends that the order of protection decision is not moot. In Cardoso, Maria Cardoso appealed from an order of protection entered in favor of her former husband, Paul Soldo.

Although Shah did not file an answering brief, in our discretion, we decline to consider her failure to do so as a confession of error. See Cardoso v. Soldo , 230 Ariz. 614, 616 n.1, ¶ 4, 277 P.3d 811, 813 n.1 (App. 2012).

Generally, an appeal becomes moot and subject to dismissal if this court's resolution of the appeal would no longer affect the parties. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617, ¶ 5, 277 P.3d 811, 814 (App. 2012). But this rule is a matter of prudential restraint, subject to our discretion.

¶11 The exception for matters of "great public importance" typically applies when the matter "will have broad public impact beyond resolution of the specific case." Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 617, ¶ 6, 277 P.3d 811, 814 (App. 2012) (citing Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 227 Ariz. at 194, ¶ 8, 254 P.3d at 1140). The exception is usually inapplicable "where an appellant's argument is grounded on events that occurred in the specific case."

While we ordinarily decline to review a question when its resolution "will have no effect on the parties," this is a prudential concern rather than a jurisdictional bar. Cardoso v. Soldo , 230 Ariz. 614, 617, ¶ 5, 277 P.3d 811, 814 (App. 2012). ¶17

Accordingly, the order of protection served on Father in April 2016 has expired. However, because an order of protection carries with it "significant collateral legal and reputational consequences" that last beyond the order's expiration, the expiration of the court's order does not render Father's appeal moot. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619, ¶ 14, 277 P.3d 811, 816 (App. 2012). On April 18, 2017, Mother petitioned for a renewed order of protection. By that time, the parties' family law case had been transferred to a different judge, who denied Mother's renewed petition on May 4, 2017. --------

See Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 437, 657 P.2d 425, 425 (App. 1982) ("Although we may regard [the] failure to respond as a confession of reversible error, we are not required to do so."). -------- ¶7 We review the continuance of an order of protection for an abuse of discretion. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619, ¶16, 277 P.3d 811, 816 (App. 2012). A court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or when the record is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.

Although the 2013 Order expired on October 22, 2014, before our consideration of this appeal, see A.R.S. § 13-3602(K), the order is not moot because it may carry significant collateral legal and reputational consequences. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619 ¶ 13, 277 P.3d 811, 816 (App. 2012). DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review ¶14 We review the decision of the superior court to affirm an order of protection for an abuse of discretion. Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, 619, ¶ 16, 277 P.3d 811, 816 (App. 2012). "The court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary conclusion or 'when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision.'"