Opinion
2 CA-CV 2024-0071
09-04-2024
In re the Support of J.M. v. Jonathan Marquez Gradillas, Respondent/Appellant. Brandy Marie Ponce, Petitioner/Appellee,
Jonathan Marquez Gradillas, Tucson In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. SP20230927 The Honorable Patricia A. Green, Judge Pro Tempore
Jonathan Marquez Gradillas, Tucson In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge O'Neil authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Vasquez and Judge Kelly concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
O'NEIL, PRESIDING JUDGE
¶1 Jonathan Marquez Gradillas appeals from the trial court's order establishing his obligation to pay child support to Brandy Ponce for the benefit of their child in common. We affirm.
We decline to treat Ponce's failure to file an answering brief as a confession of error because no debatable issues exist. See Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
¶2 After the state filed a petition to establish child support, Marquez and Ponce appeared for an evidentiary hearing. Both parties testified, and the trial court entered a judgment requiring Marquez to pay child support. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
¶3 Marquez has failed to cite authority, to develop any legal argument, and to provide appropriate citations to the record. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a) (opening brief must contain "contentions concerning each issue presented for review . . . with citations of legal authorities and appropriate references to the portions of the record on which the appellant relies"). We therefore deem his arguments waived. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009). We recognize that Marquez is not represented by an attorney, but we cannot distill any issues appropriate for appellate review given the deficiencies in his opening brief. See Kelly v. NationsBanc Mortg. Corp., 199 Ariz. 284, ¶ 16 (App. 2000) (self-represented party "is held to the same standards expected of a lawyer"). Indeed, much of the brief consists of factual assertions concerning the relative fitness of Marquez and Ponce as parents. To the extent Marquez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the child support order, he has also failed to provide a transcript of the hearing. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(A) (appellant must include all transcripts "necessary for proper consideration of the issues on appeal"); Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995) ("When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions.").
Disposition
¶4 We affirm the trial court's child support order.