Goodman v. Granados

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. 31.34 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE In re the Matter of: ) ) BEVERLY FAYE GOODMAN, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) JONATHAN GRANADOS, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) ) 1 CA-CV 10-0905 DIVISION ONE FILED: 04/24/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC2005-051267 The Honorable Pamela Gates, Judge AFFIRMED Beverly Faye Goodman In propria persona Rose Law Group PC By Keith A. Berkshire Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee Phoenix Scottsdale J O H N S E N, Judge ¶1 Beverly Faye Goodman ( Mother ) appeals the superior court s order modifying custody. we affirm. For the reasons that follow, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Mother and Jonathan Granados ( Father ) have a child, born out of wedlock in September 2004. matters were established by Mother sole legal custody. a Child custody and other December 2007 order granting Pursuant to the parties agreement and the December 2007 order, Mother was the primary custodial parent and Father had parenting time. ¶3 In March 2011, Father filed a petition seeking modification of custody, parenting time and child support. pre-hearing Appointed scheduling Advisor conference, ( CAA ) and the ordered court Mother named to a At a Court- produce her medical and mental health records. ¶4 At trial, Father and Mother. the court heard testimony from the CAA, Based on the evidence, including Mother s mental health records and a parenting conference report issued prior to the 2007 order, the court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of custody and awarded the parents joint legal custody, with Father designated as the primary residential parent and Mother given parenting time. ¶5 Mother filed a motion to vacate and for a new trial, which Father opposed. The court denied Mother s motion, but supplemented and clarified its factual findings and explicitly described the change in circumstances materially affecting the child. 2 ¶6 Mother timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 12-2101(A)(1) (West 2012). 1 DISCUSSION ¶7 We review a superior court s decision on child custody for an abuse of discretion. Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 134 Ariz. 177, 179, 655 P.2d 1, 3 (1982); Black v. Black, 114 Ariz. 282, 284, 560 P.2d 800, 802 (1977). ¶8 On material change evidence. appeal, The Mother argues in circumstances court explicitly the is court s not finding supported designated three of by changes a the it found had an ongoing, substantial and detrimental [e]ffect on the welfare of the child. First, the court found that, after the child experienced a significant trauma in April 2009, Mother failed to obtain therapeutic services for her that would have been in the child s best interests. dispute this finding. On appeal, Mother does not Next, the court noted the 2007 parenting conference report recounted appropriate [mental health] treatment raise questions would that Mother was receiving and not exhibiting was symptoms that parent. At the time of the modification hearing, however, the 1 about her ability to Absent material revision after the date of the events at issue, we cite a statute s current version. 3 court found on the basis of Mother s testimony and her medical records that she has not consistently pursued therapy and treatment for her mental health issues and that this caused concern regarding Mother s ability to transport the child and focus on the child s educational needs and requirements. 2 This finding by the court is well supported by the evidence. ¶9 Third, the court found Mother lacks indicia of stability that were present at the time of the original custody order. The 2007 parenting report indicated stability based on, for instance, Mother s ability to hold a job that appear[ed] to be a position of some responsibility. By her own admission, however, Mother has been unemployed since November 2007. Mother now argues her employment status has no bearing on the child s welfare because her disability income allows her to meet her financial obligations to the Child. The court s finding regarding stability, however, reflects a general concern about factors that we infer include but are not limited to Mother s 2 Mother argues the court improperly considered the October 2007 parenting conference report because it predated the original custody order and argues the medical records were not properly in evidence. But the court may consider circumstances prior to the original custody decree if they are relevant to current issues. See Hendricks v. Mortensen, 153 Ariz. 241, 24344, 735 P.2d 851, 853-54 (App. 1987) ( The admissibility of specific items of evidence is to be determined not by whether that evidence relates to circumstances predating an earlier order but by its relevancy to the issues raised in the subsequent proceeding. (quotation omitted)). Moreover, Mother offered no objection at trial to the documents she now argues the court improperly considered. 4 income. the Given its concern about Mother s emotional stability, court did conclusion. not abuse its discretion in coming to this Taken together, these three factors sufficiently constitute a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child. See Hendricks, 153 Ariz. at 243, 735 P.2d at 853. ¶10 Mother also argues the court s ruling is inconsistent with and not supported by its factual findings. She contends the court s decision to grant her joint legal custody and to give her decisions, final and decision-making its comment that authority equal about parenting medical time, if feasible, would be ideal, fly in the face of its findings with respect to her mental health and stability. ¶11 A change in custody, however, is not a matter of all or nothing; it is within the superior court s sound discretion, having considered all factors relevant to the child s best interests, to reduce but not eliminate Mother s authority. See, e.g., Pridgeon, 134 Ariz. at 179, 655 P.2d at 3 (court s custody determination reversed only if there evidence to support its actions ). is a clear absence of Here, although the court expressed concern about Mother s ability to focus on the child s needs due to her own mental health issues, the court also noted that both Mother and Father are [] capable and loving parents capable of making joint decisions about their child. 5 ¶12 Mother reasons why next the interest[s]. argues the modification court was failed in the to provide child s best When determining custody on a contested petition for modification, the court must consider and make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the child. A.R.S. § 25-403(B) (West 2012). The court s order in this case included detailed findings on each of the § 25-403(A) factors and included substantial supporting the findings. not explain interests, why the the of the facts Although Mother argues the court did modification court s interests conclusion. explanations detailed was in findings the child s support its best best- Compare Reid v. Reid, 222 Ariz. 204, 207, ¶¶ 11-13, 213 P.3d 353, 356 (App. 2009) (findings insufficient where appellate court cannot ascertain from the court s orders and ruling how the court weighed the statutory factors ). ¶13 Additionally, performed its Mother contends the court best-interests analysis before it improperly concluded whether a material change in circumstances had been proven. The law requires that a court may grant a petition to modify custody only if it finds both a material change in circumstances and that modification would serve the child s Black, 114 Ariz. at 283, 560 P.2d at 801. best interests. While the factors that establish a change of circumstances materially affecting a 6 child s welfare are not always completely dispositive of the question of what will be in the child s best interests, they are highly relevant. Id. at 284, 560 P.2d at 802. We discern no error when, as here, the court considers relevant best-interests factors in determining whether a material change in circumstances exists. ¶14 order Mother also argues the court s order and supplemental are factually inconsistent with each other. But what Mother calls gross differences reflected in the supplemental order are nothing more than clarifications of the original order, not contradictions. CONCLUSION ¶15 order. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the court s Father requests attorney s fees on appeal under A.R.S. § 25-324 (West 2012). statutory factors, In our discretion, having considered the we decline Father s request, although we grant him his costs on appeal, contingent on compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. /s/ DIANE M. JOHNSEN, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge /s/ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 7

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.