Opinion
2 CA-CV 2023-0033
09-15-2023
Elaine Marie Scariati, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Vincent James Scariati, Defendant/Appellant.
Vincent Scariati, Canyon, Texas In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Appeal from the Superior Court in Gila County No. S0400PO202200083 The Honorable Timothy M. Wright, Judge
Vincent Scariati, Canyon, Texas In Propria Persona
Judge O'Neil authored the decision of the Court, in which Vice Chief Judge Staring and Judge Sklar concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
O'NEIL, JUDGE
¶1 Vincent Scariati appeals from the trial court's ruling continuing an order of protection in favor of Elaine Scariati and their child, V.S. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 "We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's ruling." Mahar v. Acuna, 230 Ariz. 530, ¶ 2 (App. 2012). In December 2022, Elaine petitioned for an order of protection, alleging Vincent had threatened her and V.S. After an ex parte hearing, the court granted the order of protection.
¶3 Vincent contested the order. In January 2023, at the contested hearing, the trial court continued the order of protection. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and 12-2101(A)(5)(b).
Discussion
¶4 Vincent's principal argument on appeal, as we understand it, is that the trial court erred in "granting . . . th[e] order of protection" without "proper evidence to substantiate" Elaine's allegations against him, thus violating his "constitutional right to take part in the rearing of his child" without a "fair day in court." He asserts Elaine's intent in seeking the order of protection was "solely to alienate" him from his daughter, through the help of law enforcement and the court, which "conspired with [Elaine]" by "act[ing] knowingly in the parental obstruction." He also argues the court did not have "[j]urisdiction over the couple and the minor child."
Elaine has not filed an answering brief with this court. Although we may treat her failure to do so as a confession of error, we decline to do so here because Vincent has not presented any debatable issues. See Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, ¶ 9 (App. 2014).
¶5 As a preliminary matter, Vincent's opening brief does not meaningfully comply with our appellate rules. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a), 14(a)(5). He does not reference the portions of the record on which he relies and does not develop or support his legal arguments with citations to relevant legal authorities. See Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(7); see also Christina G. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 227 Ariz. 231, n.6 (App. 2011). Although Vincent represents himself, "[w]e hold unrepresented litigants in Arizona to the same standards as attorneys." Flynn v. Campbell, 243 Ariz. 76, ¶ 24 (2017). Thus, we deem his arguments waived. See Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, ¶ 62 (App. 2009) (failure to cite to legal authority and relevant portions of record may constitute abandonment and waiver of claims).
¶6 Even assuming Vincent's arguments were not waived, however, we have no basis to disturb the trial court's order. See Zwicky v. Premiere Vacation Collection Owners Ass'n, 244 Ariz. 228, ¶ 22 (App. 2018) (we review order of protection for abuse of discretion). The trial court found that "an act of domestic violence has been made toward the minor child and the Plaintiff." See A.R.S. § 13-3602(E) (requiring issuance of order of protection upon reasonable cause to believe defendant may commit or has committed domestic violence). Vincent was responsible for providing "transcripts of superior court proceedings not already in the official record" that he "deem[ed] necessary for proper consideration of the issues on appeal." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 11(c)(1)(A); see also Blair v. Burgener, 226 Ariz. 213, ¶ 9 (App. 2010). However, he failed to provide this court with a transcript of the contested hearing. In the absence of a transcript, we must presume the record supports the court's ruling. See Bliss v. Treece, 134 Ariz. 516, 519 (1983).
Disposition
¶7 We affirm the trial court's order continuing the order of protection.