CARDELL v. NELSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) CHRISTINE NELSON, ) ) Defendant/Appellant. ) ) _____________________________ ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 12/11/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: mjt 1 CA-CV 12-0153 DIANE CARDELL, DEPARTMENT E MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court of Yavapai County Cause No. V1300DO201280008 The Honorable Patricia Amavisca Trebesch AFFIRMED Diane Cardell, In Propria Persona Christine Nelson, In Propria Persona Chino Valley Cottonwood T H O M P S O N, Judge ¶1 Christine Nelson (Nelson) appeals from the order of protection entered against her as to Diane Cardell (Cardell) and Cardell s minor daughter, J.C.K. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Cardell filed a petition for an order of protection (the petition) against Nelson on January 9, 2012, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3602 (2010) on behalf of herself and her child J.C.K. According to Cardell, at the time of the petition, Nelson was dating or engaged to Cardell s ex-husband who is J.C.K. s father. Cardell s petition alleged Nelson was driving J.C.K. without a driver s license as a result of her three D.U.I. convictions. Under the Defendant/Plaintiff Relationship section of the petition, Cardell checked the boxes that read child in common and other and handwrote in she is my ex husband s fiancÃ©. The petition requested that Nelson stay away from Cardell s home and work and J.C.K. s school. ¶3 The court issued an order of protection which barred Nelson from having contact with Cardell and driving J.C.K. J.C.K. and from For the Defendant/Plaintiff Relationship section of the order, the court entered married now or in the past. Nelson was given notice of the order on January 11, 2012, and she requested sustained the jurisdiction a hearing. order. pursuant After Nelson to Protective Order Procedure. Rule that timely 9 of hearing, appealed. the Arizona the court We Rules have of DISCUSSION ¶4 Nelson argues that the order of protection is invalid because the parties to the order are both female and do not have a qualifying statutory relationship. Specifically, Nelson states she and Cardell do not have a child in common nor have they ever been married to each other. Cardell asserts that because Nelson was acting as a step-parent, residing with J.C.K. and driving J.C.K. during her father s parenting time, the order of protection is valid.1 ¶5 We agree. The purpose of an order of protection is to restrain a person from committing an act of domestic violence. 13-3602(A). For an order of protection to be A.R.S. § valid, the plaintiff and defendant must be in one of the six relationships enumerated 3602(C)(4). by A.R.S. § 13-3601(A)(2010).2 See A.R.S. § 13- If the victim is a minor child, the parent shall 1 Neither Nelson nor Cardell complied with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure (ARCAP) Rule 13(a)(6), which requires the parties briefs to include citation to legal authority. 2 Those relationships are: 1. One of marriage or former marriage or of persons residing or having resided in the same household; 2. The victim and the defendant have a child in common; 3. The victim or the defendant is pregnant by the other party; 4. The victim is related to the defendant or the defendant's spouse by blood or law, such as by marriage; 5. The victim is a child who resides or has resided in the same household as the defendant and is related by blood to a former spouse of the defendant or to a person who resides or who has resided in the same household as the defendant, and 6. The relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship. file for an order of protection. A.R.S. § 13-3602(A). An order of protection is valid for one year after defendant is served.3 A.R.S. § 13-3602(K)(2010). ¶6 We review the grant of an order of protection for an abuse of discretion.4 Cardoso v. Soldo, __ Ariz. __, __, ¶ 16, 277 P.3d 811, 816 (App. 2012); cf. LaFaro v. Cahill, 203 Ariz. 482, 485, ¶ 10, 56 P.3d 56, 59 (App. 2002). While we note that the court erroneously marked the form indicating the parties had been married, as a general principle we may affirm the superior court s ruling if it is correct for any reason apparent in the record. See Forszt v. Rodriguez, 212 Ariz. 263, 265, ¶ 9, 130 P.3d 538, 540 (App. 2006). Section 13-3601(A)(5) provides that on order of protection may be entered where [t]he victim is a child who resides or has resided in the same household as the defendant and is related by blood to a former spouse of the defendant or to a person who resides or who has resided in the same household as the defendant. states that Nelson was living with father at the time of the petition. Cardell s answering brief and engaged to J.C.K. s Accordingly, assuming, as 3 The order of protection will naturally expire, therefore, on January 24, 2013. 4 Because Nelson has not provided us with a transcript of either hearing, we must presume the record supports the court s findings. Ariz. R. Civ. Proc. 11(b)(1); Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (1995). we must, accepted Nelson that evidence by the were in protection superior a under was presented court, qualified A.R.S. § the at the minor relationship 13-3602(A)(5). hearings child for J.C.K. an and and order of Furthermore, we presume that the superior court found evidence that Nelson posed a danger to J.C.K. because Nelson was driving her without a driver s license. ¶6 Based discretion by See Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73, 900 P.2d at 767. upon the the superior foregoing, court. we We find affirm no abuse of the order of protection. /s/ ______________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ _______________________________________ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Acting Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.