Skeete v. Ming

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 In re the Matter of: ) ) SHANE A. SKEETE, ) ) Petitioner/Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) CHRISTINE M. MING, ) ) Respondent/Appellant. ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-20-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH No. 1 CA-CV 09-0291 DEPARTMENT C MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC 2008-001133 The Honorable Lisa Daniel Flores, Judge AFFIRMED Shane A. Skeete, Petitioner/Appellee In Propria Persona Upper Marlboro, Maryland Christine M. Ming, Respondent/Appellant In Propria Persona Apache Junction D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 Christine Ming ( Mother ) appeals certain rulings by the family court. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Maryland in 2003. their two minor Shane Skeete ( Father ) divorced in They were awarded joint legal custody of sons, with Mother having physical custody. Father received visitation rights, including Christmas in evennumbered years. Mother and the children moved to Arizona in 2004. ¶3 In February 2008, Mother domesticated the divorce decree in the Maricopa County Superior Court. 2008, she filed a Petition for Order to Show Maryland On May 2, Cause ( OSC petition ), alleging Father had failed to abide by provisions of the decree regarding medical insurance and trust accounts for the children; she also sought to reduce Father s parenting time. ¶4 In November 2008, Christmas visitation. Father contacted Mother about Mother stated she would not allow the visitation due to concerns about physical and emotional abuse. Father requested an emergency hearing, which occurred on December 12. The court ordered Mother to send the children to Maryland Christmas for visitation with Father. It denied Mother s subsequent requests for reconsideration and assignment of a new judge. ¶5 On evidentiary January hearing 12, 2009, regarding the Mother s family OSC court petition. held an Father initially challenged the court s jurisdiction, arguing Maryland 2 had not relinquished jurisdiction. His counsel suggested calling the Maryland judge or taking provisional testimony. When the court indicated it was not inclined to proceed due to the jurisdictional challenge, Father withdrew his objection. The hearing proceeded. ¶6 In a minute entry dated March 3, 2009, the court ruled that the medical insurance issue was moot because Father had current coverage for the children. Regarding the trust funds, the court found that Father had substantially complied with the decree s terms. It also ruled that Father had satisfied his child support obligations and was entitled to claim the oldest child as a tax exemption in 2008. Finally, the court awarded Father an unspecified portion of his attorneys fees, finding that Mother had taken unreasonable positions in the litigation. ¶7 to Mother timely appealed. Arizona Revised Statutes We have jurisdiction pursuant ( A.R.S. ) section 12-2101(C) (2003). DISCUSSION 1. ¶8 Subject Matter Jurisdiction Mother challenges the family court s jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ( UCCJEA ). She argues that, because Maryland had not relinquished its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, the court 3 erred in making any orders and in even hearing evidence. We disagree. ¶9 to Arizona adopted the UCCJEA in 2001. -1067 subject (2007). matter disputes. The UCCJEA jurisdiction A.R.S. §§ 25-1001 establishes in which interstate court child has custody J.D.S. v. Franks, 182 Ariz. 81, 86, 893 P.2d 732, 737 (1995) (citations omitted). Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is a question of law that we review de novo. In re Marriage of Tonnessen, 189 Ariz. 225, 226, 941 P.2d 237, 238 (App. 1997) (citation omitted). A party may not create subject matter jurisdiction through agreement or consent. Thomas v. Thomas, 203 Ariz. 34, 36, ¶ 9, 49 P.3d 306, 308 (App. 2002). ¶10 Article 2 of the UCCJEA limits the family court s jurisdiction when, in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA, another court has already commenced child custody proceedings, A.R.S. § 25-1032, or when a court modifies the initial child custody determination of another court. A.R.S. § 25-1033. In modification the to cases, Article 2 requires Arizona court first confer with the judge who issued the out-of-state custody order and/or continuing get the jurisdiction out-of-state over its court custody to order. release Melgar its v. Campo, 215 Ariz. 605, 605, ¶ 1, 161 P.3d 1271, 1271 (App. 2007). Accord A.R.S. § 25-1033. 4 ¶11 A child custody proceeding is one that raises or may raise an issue regarding legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child. defining child custody A.R.S. § 25-1002(4)(a). proceeding, the excludes enforcement under article 3. UCCJEA In specifically A.R.S. § 25-1002(4)(b). Under Article 3, an Arizona court has a duty to recognize and enforce a child custody determination of another state s court if the other court exercised conformity with the UCCJEA. jurisdiction in substantial A.R.S. § 25-1053(A); Melgar, 215 Ariz. at 607, ¶ 10, 161 P.3d at 1271. Pursuant to this duty, an Arizona court must recognize and enforce, but shall not modify, except in accordance with Article 2 of this chapter, a registered child custody determination of a court of another state. ¶12 A.R.S. § 25-1056(B). The visitation rulings at issue here (which are the only matters subject to the UCCJEA) merely enforced the Maryland decree. Although Mother initially sought to modify parenting time, she withdrew that request. Similarly, Father orally moved to modify custody and visitation, but the court found he had not properly presented the request and denied it. The family court acted within its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. 2. Attorneys Fees ¶13 Mother challenges the Father. She argues there was no basis for the award because 5 award of attorneys fees to the Court essentially agreed with nearly all of Appellant s issues, only ruled against her because Appellee had rectified the issues by the time of trial, and the prior Christmas action was irrelevant to this one. She also claims the court erred because Father earns more money than she does. ¶14 In responding to Mother s OSC petition, Father sought fees and costs for having to bring action to enforce Christmas visitation and Petition. and respond to the [m]other s unwarranted He also requested fees in his pre-trial statement alleged positions [to] therein throughout that Mother had causing Father to taken incur unreasonable fees. At the evidentiary hearing, the court asked whether either side was seeking a fee award. Father presented evidence regarding his entitlement to fees. ¶15 In its minute entry ruling, the court found that Mother has taken unreasonable positions in this litigation and she caused Father to incur unnecessary attorney s fees to defend against them, including the emergency motion to enforce his parenting time rights at Christmas. It concluded Father was entitled to an award of a portion of his reasonable attorney s fees. Father submitted a fee application seeking $5670. Mother filed her notice of appeal and her objection to Father s fee application on the same day. 6 The family court determined it had been divested of jurisdiction and declined to enter a fee award for a specific sum. ¶16 In May 2010, this Court suspended the appeal and revested jurisdiction in the superior court so that it could rule on Father s pending fee application. The superior court did so by minute entry ruling filed June 15, 2010. awarded Father $2835 in attorneys fees. The court Despite being given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief regarding the amount of the fee Thus, award, the sole Mother filed fee-related nothing issue further properly in this before us Court. is the determination that Father qualified for a fee award. ¶17 Pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324(A) (Supp. 2009), after considering the financial resources of both parties and the reasonableness of the positions each party has taken throughout the proceedings, the court may order one party to pay a reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and costs expended by the other party in litigating the matter. We review an award of fees abuse under A.R.S. § 25-324 for an of discretion. Breitbart-Napp v. Napp, 216 Ariz. 74, 83, ¶ 35, 163 P.3d 1024, 1033 (App. 2007) (citation omitted). ¶18 The record reflects that Father earns $27.26 per hour and Mother earns $23.18 per hour, a difference the family court deemed not significant, especially after considering Father s child support payments. The 7 record also supports the determination that Mother took unreasonable positions-- especially as to visitation, and that Mother acted unreasonably regarding the trust funds and insurance. 1 ¶19 the The decree required Father to put $15,000 in trust for children, with the parties named as joint trustees. According to Father, he told Mother in 2004 that he had placed the funds in a college savings plan through his State Farm agent and that the plan allowed only one enrollee. her name was numbers. not on the accounts and Father told Mother gave her the account Mother voiced no objection until 2008, when she filed her OSC petition. Father testified, without contradiction, that neither parent may withdraw funds from the accounts. The court found that Mother had notice of this arrangement for several years without objecting, that Father had substantially complied with the decree s terms, and that forcing him to now withdraw the funds and create new accounts was unreasonable and punitive. ¶20 As initially for medical provided it, insurance, but Father discontinued 1 the testified coverage that he because In concluding that Mother took unreasonable positions on these issues, the family court implicitly credited Father s version of events over Mother s where the two conflicted. The credibility of a witness is for the trier of fact and not an appellate court. State v. Gallagher, 169 Ariz. 202, 203, 818 P.2d 187, 188 (App. 1991) (citation omitted). As such, we afford great weight to the trial court s assessment of witnesses credibility and will not reverse absent clear error. No such error appears here. 8 Mother wanted to place the boys on her plan due to disputes with Father s insurer about coverage in Arizona. 2 When Mother asked Father to put the children back on his plan, he learned from his employer that the open enrollment period had closed. became possible to enroll them again, Father did When it so. The children were insured by Father at the time of hearing, and Mother made no claim at that hearing for reimbursement of premiums she had paid. CONCLUSION ¶21 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the orders of the family court. We deny Mother s request for attorneys fees incurred on appeal. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ DONN KESSLER, Judge /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Judge 2 Contrary to Mother s claim, Father is not required to purchase insurance in Arizona. The record supports the family court s ruling that the decree only required Father to provide insurance for the children and did not contemplate Mother s later move to Arizona. 9

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.