From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex rel. Dep't of Economic Sec. v. Seppanen

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 18, 2020
No. 1 CA-CV 19-0588 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0588 FC

06-18-2020

STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, (REBECCA LYNN WADE), Petitioners/Appellees, v. MATTHEW RAYMOND SEPPANEN, Respondent/Appellant.

COUNSEL Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Carol A. Salvati Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Matthew Raymond Seppanen, Kingman Respondent/Appellant Rebecca Lynn Lerma, Kingman Petitioner/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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 Mohave County
No. S8015DO201500184
The Honorable Douglas Camacho, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix
By Carol A. Salvati
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

Matthew Raymond Seppanen, Kingman
Respondent/Appellant

Rebecca Lynn Lerma, Kingman
Petitioner/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

CATTANI, Judge:

¶1 Matthew Raymond Seppanen ("Father") appeals from the superior court's order modifying his child support obligation. For reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Father and Rebecca Lerma ("Mother") have one minor child together. In 2015, Mother filed a petition to establish sole legal decision-making, and after a hearing, the superior court granted Mother's petition. The court's order granted Father 48-hour visits every other week and directed him to pay $382 per month in ongoing child support and to make $50 monthly payments toward past child support obligations. The following year, the superior court increased Father's monthly child support obligation to $400 after Father began spending less time with the child and Mother began paying for the child's medical insurance.

¶3 In 2018, Father filed a petition to modify legal decision-making, asserting that he made meaningful personal changes since the court's original ruling and requesting an increase in visitation to 72 hours weekly. Following a hearing, the superior court concluded that Mother should retain sole decision-making, but increased Father's visitation to 72 hours every other week, with increased parenting time on the off-weeks and expanded summer and holiday time.

¶4 Following this increase in parenting time, Father requested a reduction in child support payments from $400 to $54 per month. After conducting a hearing at which both parties testified, the court reduced Father's child support obligation to $250 per month, an amount consistent with the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. Father appealed, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶5 As a preliminary matter, we note that Father failed to provide transcripts on appeal. See ARCAP 11(c)(1)(A)-(B). We review the superior court's modification of a child support order for an abuse of discretion, but in the absence of transcripts, we assume the record supports the superior court's ruling. Nia v. Nia, 242 Ariz. 419, 422, ¶ 7 (App. 2017); Kline v. Kline, 221 Ariz. 564, 572, ¶ 33 (App. 2009).

¶6 Father first argues that the superior court erred by failing to deduct expenses related to his child from another relationship in calculating his adjusted gross income. The Arizona Child Support Guidelines, A.R.S. § 25-320 app. ("Guidelines"), provide that "[a]n amount may be deducted from the gross income of a parent for support of natural or adopted children of other relationships not covered by a court order." See Guidelines § 6(D). Father submitted a child support worksheet to the superior court indicating that he supported one child that was not the subject of a court order and notes on appeal that Mother and the State included this deduction in their worksheets as well. In its ruling, the superior court did not reduce Father's gross income to reflect this deduction. Although Father argues that the court erred by failing to do so, the decision whether to reduce a party's income is left to the discretion of the superior court, see id. ("[a]n amount may be deducted") (emphasis added), and in the absence of transcripts or other record evidence to the contrary, we assume the record supported the superior court's decision. See Kline, 221 Ariz. at 572, ¶ 33. Accordingly, Father has failed to demonstrate that the superior court erred by failing to deduct additional child support from Father's gross income.

¶7 Next, Father asserts that in the past, he agreed to allow Mother to take the tax exemption for the child in exchange for a downward deviation from the Guidelines. See Guidelines §§ 20, 27. He argues that they should alternate taking the tax exemption because Mother no longer has any income, does not incur expenses related to the child, and he has never missed a child support payment. Although the downward deviation and Mother receiving the tax exemption are apparent in the record, there is no evidence of any agreement relating the two, and Mother denies that such an agreement existed. On the record before us, Father has failed to show that the superior court abused its discretion by allowing Mother to take the tax exemption every year. See Kline, 221 Ariz. at 572, ¶ 33.

¶8 Father's remaining arguments fail for the same reason. Father argues that he was promised a downward deviation from the Guidelines' amount at a prior hearing and that the amount of medical insurance the

superior court deducted from Mother's income is inconsistent with her testimony. Absent transcripts from these hearings, we are unable to review these claims and thus assume the record supports the superior court's ruling. See id.

CONCLUSION

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.


Summaries of

State ex rel. Dep't of Economic Sec. v. Seppanen

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE
Jun 18, 2020
No. 1 CA-CV 19-0588 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2020)
Case details for

State ex rel. Dep't of Economic Sec. v. Seppanen

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel., THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, (REBECCA…

Court:ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jun 18, 2020

Citations

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0588 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 18, 2020)