Watson v. Cozad
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION ONE
FILED: 09/08/2011
RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,
CLERK
BY: DLL
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF ARIZONA
DIVISION ONE
In re the Matter of:
)
)
CRAIG WATSON,
)
)
Petitioner/Appellant, )
)
v.
)
)
JENNIFER COZAD,
)
)
Respondent/Appellee. )
)
__________________________________)
No. 1 CA-CV 10-0567
DEPARTMENT C
Maricopa County
Superior Court
No. FC2008-052188
DECISION ORDER
The court, Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Patricia
K. Norris and Judge Philip Hall, has concluded that we lack
jurisdiction to consider this appeal; however, in our discretion
we accept special action jurisdiction and deny relief.
We
have
an
independent
obligation
jurisdiction in every appeal.
to
ensure
we
have
Sorenson v. Farmers Ins. Co. of
Ariz., 191 Ariz. 464, 465, 957 P.2d 1007, 1008 (App. 1997).
Craig Watson (“Father”) challenges a May 2010 order reappointing
a
parenting
pursuant
to
coordinator,
Arizona
asserting
Revised
Statutes
2101(C) (2003), 1 which permits
order
1
made
after
final
that
we
have
(“A.R.S.”)
jurisdiction
section
12-
an appeal “[f]rom any special
judgment.”
We
disagree.
An
order
Subsequently renumbered as A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(2) (2011).
appointing a parenting coordinator is substantially equivalent
to
an
order
appealable.
appointing
a
special
master,
which
is
not
See ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162, 165,
¶ 7, 83 P.3d 1103, 1106 (App. 2004); Bolon v. Pennington, 3
Ariz. App. 433, 435, 415 P.2d 148, 150 (App. 1966).
Thus, the
order Father seeks to challenge is not appealable.
Although
we
lack
appellate
jurisdiction,
nevertheless accept special action jurisdiction.
we
may
See Grand v.
Nacchio, 214 Ariz. 9, 17, ¶ 20, 147 P.3d 763, 771 (App. 2006).
As Father has “no equally plain, speedy, or adequate remedy by
appeal,” in the exercise of our discretion, we accept special
action jurisdiction.
See ChartOne, 207 Ariz at 165-66, ¶¶ 7-9,
83 P.3d at 1106-07.
We
review
a
family
“court’s
decision
custody for an abuse of discretion.”
regarding
child
Owen v. Blackhawk, 206
Ariz. 418, 420, ¶ 7, 79 P.3d 667, 669 (App. 2004) (citation
omitted).
[is]
A trial court abuses its discretion when “the record
devoid
of
competent
evidence
to
support
the
decision.”
Platt v. Platt, 17 Ariz. 458, 459, 498 P.2d 532, 533 (App.
1972).
Father
contends
that
reappointment
of
a
parenting
coordinator was an abuse of discretion because none of the five
enumerated
grounds
Specifically,
he
for
asserts
appointment
that
the
2
in
Rule
record
74(A)
fails
to
were
met.
support
a
finding that “the parents are persistently in conflict with one
another” under Rule 74(A)(1).
However, the trial court’s order
is not actually based on 74(A)(1), but instead references the
child’s best interests.
Rule 74(A)(5)
permits the appointment
of a parenting coordinator if the court finds that “it would
otherwise be in the children’s best interests to do so.”
R. Fam. L. P. 74(A)(5).
Ariz.
Based on the record, the trial court
acted within its discretion in concluding that reappointing a
parenting coordinator was in the child’s best interests.
Father
also
argues
that
reappointment
of
a
parenting
coordinator unconstitutionally denies him access to the court
because he is unable to pay the parenting coordinator’s hourly
fee.
However,
allocates
half
we
of
find
the
nothing
parenting
in
the
court’s
coordinator’s
order,
hourly
which
fee
to
Father, as precluding Father from exercising his constitutional
rights.
Accordingly,
IT
IS
ORDERED
affirming
the
trial
court’s
order
reappointing a parenting coordinator.
IT
IS
FURTHER
ORDERED
vacating
the
conference
and
oral
argument currently scheduled for September 21, 2011.
/s/
MICHAEL J. BROWN, Presiding Judge
3
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.
