Opinion
1 CA-CV 23-0579 FC
07-18-2024
In re the Matter of: JANET SANTA CRUZ, Petitioner/Appellant, v. NESTOR DANIEL ESCOBEDO MORALES, Respondent/Appellee.
Janet Santa Cruz Soto, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant. Nestor Daniel Escobedo Morales, Glendale Respondent/Appellee.
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. FC2016-006927, FC2017-008815 The Honorable Melissa Zabor, Judge.
Janet Santa Cruz Soto, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant.
Nestor Daniel Escobedo Morales, Glendale Respondent/Appellee.
Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court's decision in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Daniel J. Kiley joined.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
WILLIAMS, JUDGE.
¶1 Janet Cruz ("Mother") appeals the superior court's child support order. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 Mother and Nestor Morales ("Father") share one child, born in 2011. In 2016, on the Department of Economic Security's petition, the superior court entered an order: (1) establishing no past child support (noting Father had "satisfied" his child support obligation through "direct payments" to Mother), (2) establishing no current child support (finding a deviation from the Arizona Child Support Guidelines both appropriate and in the child's best interests for an unspecified reason), (3) allocating the tax benefits for the dependent child to the parties in alternating years (Mother claiming odd years and Father claiming even years), (4) apportioning the child's uncovered medical expenses between the parties (Mother responsible for 37% and Father responsible for 63%), and (5) granting Mother sole legal decision-making authority.
¶3 In 2017, Father petitioned to establish legal decision-making authority and parenting time. The parties reached an Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 69 agreement, which the superior court adopted in March 2018 "as temporary orders until final orders are entered." Though referenced, that agreement is not included in the appellate record. Apparently, however, Mother and Father agreed to share joint legal decision-making authority, as well as equal parenting time. They further agreed that neither parent would be obligated to pay child support to the other. And the parties evidently treated the temporary orders as a final order.
¶4 In 2022, Mother petitioned to modify parenting time and child support, claiming, among other things, that Father had abused the child. Mother asked the superior court to: (1) grant Father no parenting time, (2) order Father to pay monthly child support of $850, (3) order Father to pay all the child's medical, dental, and vision insurance, (4) order Father to pay Mother past child support from May 2020, and (5) grant her the tax benefits for the child for three out of every four years. Mother separately petitioned for sole legal decision-making authority. In accompanying affidavits, Mother detailed that the child resided with her from May 2020 to the date of filing, and outlined her monthly gross income and expenses (with expenses exceeding income). Father likewise submitted an affidavit of financial information reflecting his monthly gross income and expenses (with income exceeding expenses).
¶5 Because neither party sought final orders after the 2018 temporary orders were entered, the superior court construed Mother's petition to modify as a petition to establish parenting time and child support in the first instance. After an evidentiary hearing, the court: (1) awarded the parties joint legal decision-making authority (expressly considering all A.R.S. § 25-403 factors to evaluate the child's best interests), (2) awarded the parties equal parenting time, (3) ordered Mother to pay Father monthly child support of $82, (4) ordered Mother to pay Father past support of $902 for the period following the filing of her petition to modify, and (5) allocated the tax benefits for the child between the parties, with three years to Father followed by two years to Mother.
¶6 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶7 Mother challenges the superior court's child support orders. Although Mother's brief does not comply with the civil appellate rules, failing to adequately cite to the record and legal authority upon which she relies, see ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A), we exercise our discretion and address her claims to the extent they are supported by reasonable explanation. See Delmastro &Eells v. Taco Bell Corp., 228 Ariz. 134, 137, ¶ 7 n.2 (App. 2011) (noting appellate court's discretionary authority to consider the merits of deficient briefs).
¶8 We also note that the appellate record does not contain any transcripts or recording of the evidentiary hearing. The governing procedural rules task appellants with ordering transcripts of superior court proceedings not already in the official record that the appellant "deems necessary for proper consideration of the issues on appeal," and if an "appellant will contend on appeal that a judgment, finding or conclusion, is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant must include in the record transcripts of all proceedings containing evidence relevant to that judgment, finding or conclusion." ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A), (B). Here, Mother failed to comply with her obligations under ARCAP 11. "When an appellant fails to include all transcripts or other documents, we assume the missing portions of the record support the [superior] court's findings and ruling[s]." State ex rel. Brnovich v. Miller, 245 Ariz. 323, 324, ¶ 5 n.1 (App. 2018). To the extent Mother's challenges implicate hearing transcripts, we presume that the record supports the court's rulings.
I. Alleged Disclosure Violation
¶9 Mother first argues that Father violated his disclosure obligations by failing to timely provide her with copies of the exhibits -consisting largely of photographs and text messages -he submitted at the evidentiary hearing.
To the extent Mother objects only to Father's failure to provide her with copies of his exhibits-not the superior court's admission of those exhibits at the evidentiary hearing-the record reflects that since the filing of her opening brief, the superior court granted Mother's post-judgment motion for a temporary release of the exhibits into her custody.
¶10 The "disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that each party to an action is fairly informed of the facts, data, legal theories, witnesses, documents, and other information that is relevant to the case." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 49(a)(1). To comply with its obligations under the governing rules, "[a] party must disclose information in the party's possession and control, as well as information that the party can determine or acquire by reasonable inquiry and investigation." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 49 (a)(2). If a party fails to comply with a disclosure rule, the court may "prohibit[] the disobedient party . . . from introducing designated matters in evidence." Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 65(b)(1)(B). Because the superior court is in a better position to determine whether "a disclosure violation has occurred in the context of a given case" and, if so, its "practical effect," we uphold its evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion. Solimeno v. Yonan, 224 Ariz. 74, 77, ¶ 9 (App. 2010).
¶11 It does not appear that Mother objected to Father's exhibits at the evidentiary hearing. And Mother has not alleged, nor shown, any resulting prejudice from Father's purported late disclosure. See Zimmerman v. Shakman, 204 Ariz. 231, 235, ¶ 14 (App. 2003) (noting the disclosure rules "should be interpreted to maximize the likelihood of a decision on the merits" and explaining that the "relevant question" is whether a late disclosure "is harmful to the opposing party or to the justice system") (internal quotation and citation omitted). On this record, there is no basis to conclude that the superior court abused its discretion by admitting Father's exhibits at the evidentiary hearing.
II. Child Support Orders
¶12 We review child support awards for an abuse of discretion. Nickel v. Potter, 256 Ariz. 292, 295, ¶ 9 (App. 2023) (internal citations omitted); see also Gelin v. Murray, 251 Ariz. 544, 547, ¶¶ 14-16 (App. 2021) (explaining the superior court has discretion to order past support). Although the superior court abuses its discretion if its order lacks a competent evidentiary basis, Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5 (1999), as noted, supra ¶ 8, when the appellate record does not contain relevant transcripts, we presume "the missing portions of the record support the court's findings and ruling[s]." State ex rel. Brnovich, 245 Ariz. at 324, ¶ 5 n.1.
a. Past Child Support
¶13 Mother contests the superior court's order requiring her to pay $902 to Father for past support. She argues that she, not Father, is entitled to past support because the child has resided with her "full-time" since 2019, asserting Father acknowledged that living arrangement at the evidentiary hearing. She also claims that to the extent Father paid uncovered medical bills for the child, he failed to submit "copies of the bills" to her for reimbursement of her 37% share "within the allotted time frame."
¶14 For his part, Father denies that the child has resided primarily or full-time with Mother since 2019. According to Father, the parties exercised equal parenting until the child's school closed during the COVID pandemic. He contends that during the closure period, the child resided with Mother on weekdays and with him on weekends. Other than the closure period, Father maintains that the child has resided with him every Monday and Tuesday and every other Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, consistent with the equal parenting-time order. Father also alleges that Mother has not contributed to any of the child's uncovered medical bills.
¶15 The superior court did not make specific findings concerning its award of past support, and the record does not reflect that either party requested such findings. See Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 82(a)(1) ("If requested before trial, the court must make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law."). Given the absence of hearing transcripts and a request for specific findings, together with the parties' factual dispute concerning their respective parenting time, we presume that the evidence presented at the hearing supports the superior court's past support order. See Lehn v. Al-Thanayyan, 246 Ariz. 277, 284, ¶ 20 (App. 2019) (explaining appellate courts "do not reweigh the evidence but defer to the [superior] court's determinations of witness credibility and the weight given to conflicting evidence").
Contrary to her contention, Mother's hearing exhibits documenting: (1) a recommendation from a psychiatric nurse practitioner that Mother work from home until the child "is better stabilized," and (2) authorization for a work accommodation do not demonstrate that the child resided with Mother "primarily" or "full-time."
b. Current Child Support
¶16 Mother also contends that the superior court's current child support order is unsupported by the evidence and contrary to the child's best interests.
¶17 The Arizona Child Support Guidelines, A.R.S. § 25-320 app. ("Guidelines"), establish "a standard of support for children consistent with their needs and the ability of parents to pay." Cummings v. Cummings, 182 Ariz. 383, 385 (App. 1994). The "paramount factor" the superior court "must consider when applying the Guidelines is the best interest of the child." Engel v. Landman, 221 Ariz. 504, 513, ¶ 38 (App. 2009).
¶18 "A child support calculation begins with the computation of the parents' combined adjusted gross income." Id. at 511, ¶ 25 (citing Guidelines § 5). "The Guidelines prescribe the specific Basic Child Support Obligation based upon income and the number of children entitled to support." Id. (citing Guidelines § 8). "After certain adjustments are made to the Basic Child Support Obligation, the Total Child Support Obligation is computed." Id. (citing Guidelines § 9). "The parents' Proportionate Shares of that amount are then determined by reference to income, certain expenses and parenting time as percentages." Id. (citing Guidelines §§ 10-11). "The Total Child Support Obligation is a combined obligation, shared by both parents according to their Proportionate Shares." Id. (citing Guidelines § 10).
¶19 In this case, the child support worksheet reflects that the superior court followed the Guidelines - computing the parents' combined adjusted gross income, determining the basic child support obligation for one child, factoring in adjustments for age, insurance, and childcare costs, calculating the total child support obligation and each parent's proportionate share based on their respective incomes, and finding no parenting time adjustment applicable, given their equal parenting time. This calculation apportioned the parties' respective share of the total child support obligation ($2,431.90) at 35.71% ($868.43) for Mother and 64.29% ($1,563.47) for Father. The court then subtracted from each parent's child support obligation the "Total Additions to Child Support Obligation paid by each parent," decreasing Mother's obligation by $0 and Father's obligation by $860, for a final child support obligation of $868.43 for Mother and $703.47 for Father. The superior court halved the difference between those obligations and ordered Mother to pay Father monthly child support of $82.
¶20 In her briefing, Mother does not reference, much less contest, the $860 the superior court found that Father additionally contributes to the child's support. Nor does our review of the record reveal the evidentiary basis for this offset to Father's child support obligation. But given the absence of transcripts and a request for specific findings, we presume that the evidence presented at the hearing supports the superior court's reduction of Father's child support obligation by $860, as well as its overall calculation of the parties' respective child support obligations. State ex rel. Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 30, ¶ 16 (App. 2003) (explaining that when no transcripts are provided, we presume the testimony and other evidence discussed in the missing transcript supports the superior court's factual findings and conclusions of law).
¶21 Next, Mother argues that the "vast" disparity between her financial resources and Father's financial resources is contrary to the child's best interests. As noted, the "Guidelines follow the 'income shares model,' meaning that the amount of child support awarded approximates what 'would have been spent on the child[] if the parents and child[] were living together,' and each parent contributes his or her proportionate share of the total amount." Milinovich v. Womack, 236 Ariz. 612, 615, ¶ 11 (App. 2015) (quoting Guidelines Background). Thus, child support is designed to provide for the needs of the child, not to equalize the financial resources of the parents. See Guidelines § 3(B)(6) ("These Guidelines are designed to fit the needs of most children."). On this record, Mother has not shown that the superior court deviated from the Guidelines or improperly calculated child support.
c. Dependent Child Tax Benefit
¶22 Finally, Mother contests the superior court's allocation of the tax benefits for a dependent child. Unless the parties otherwise agree, Guidelines § 11(B)(1)(a) directs that federal and state tax benefits should be "allocated in a manner that allows each parent to claim allowable tax benefits in proportion to the Combined Child Support Income of both parents." "This allocation may be done by allocating the federal and state tax benefits for the child in a single tax year or by allocating the federal and state tax benefits for the child in specific tax years." Guidelines § 11(B)(1)(b).
¶23 Here, the superior court opted to allocate the tax benefits for the child for the next five tax years, apportioning to Father the first three years (2023, 2024, and 2025) and to Mother the last two years (2026 and 2027). This allocation of the tax benefit-60% to Father and 40% to Mother -is consistent with the parties' proportionate share of the combined child support income-64.29% from Father and 35.71% from Mother. Therefore, on this record, Mother has shown no error.
CONCLUSION
¶24 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's child support order.