Hilaire v. Norrise

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: ) ) MARC HILAIRE, ) ) Petioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) NORMA NORRISE, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) ______________________________) No. 1 CA-CV 10-0743 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION DIVISION ONE FILED: 06/07/2011 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: DLL Not for Publication (Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC2009-007418 The Honorable Robert E. Miles, Judge AFFIRMED Mark Hilaire In Propria Persona Petitioner/Appellant Laveen Gillespie, Shields & Durrant By DeeAn Gillespie Strub Mark A. Shields Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee Mesa G E M M I L L, Judge ¶1 Marc Hilaire ( Father ) appeals from the superior court s order granting Norma Norrise ( Mother ) sole custody of the parties minor daughter, J.H. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Mother have never been married. In 1995, while the parties were presumably living in California, Mother gave birth to their daughter, J.H. Mother was awarded custody of J.H., and in 2002 they moved to Nevada where Mother currently resides. In 2003, Father moved to Arizona where he currently resides. In March 2008, a California court modified its earlier custody award and gave Father sole Mother was awarded parenting time. physical custody of J.H. From 2004 to December 2009, J.H. lived with Father in Arizona. ¶3 In December 2009, J.H vacation with Mother in Nevada. spent part of her Christmas On December 28, 2009, Mother filed a petition in Maricopa County Superior Court to modify custody, parenting time and child support of J.H. Mother s petition alleged, among other things, that Father refused to abide by the 2008 California custody order, that Father abused J.H, and that J.H. no longer wanted to live with Father in Arizona. When Father attempted to pick up J.H in January 2010, Mother refused to give over J.H. and filed an emergency petition for temporary physical custody of J.H., which the superior court granted. 2 ¶4 An evidentiary hearing on Mother s petition to modify custody was conducted in March 2010. A transcript proceeding has not been provided to this court. of that Based on the court s minute entry from the proceeding, it appears the court heard testimony from Mother and Father. In August 2010, the court issued a minute entry order, awarding Mother sole custody of J.H., and ordering Father to pay child support to Mother. The court found, among other things, that J.H. is fearful of Father and that she has stated that Father touches her inappropriately. The court also found that J.H. has a strained relationship Father, with but has a good relationship with Mother, and that J.H wants to live with Mother. ¶5 Father timely appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S ) section 12-2101(B) (2003). ANALYSIS ¶6 can Father raises several issues on appeal. discern, it appears Father is making As best we the following arguments: (1) Mother s exhibits were not timely delivered to Father, (2) the court erred by not rescheduling the hearing, (3) Mother s testimony was not credible, and (4) there insufficient evidence to support the court s decision. was Because Father s brief does not contain citations to the record, provide legal authority, or further develop the arguments raised, we do not address Father s arguments and consider them waived. 3 See ARCAP 13(a)(6) (a brief shall contain arguments with citations to authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon); Ritchie v. Krasner, 221 Ariz. 288, 305, ¶ 62, 211 P.3d 1272, 1289 (App. 2009) (failure to support arguments with legal authority may constitute abandonment and waiver of that claim). ¶7 Moreover, to the extent Father is challenging the court s findings and the sufficiency of the evidence, we note that Father has not provided this court with a transcript of the March 2010 hearing. It is the appellant s burden to ensure the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised. Baker Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995). v. In the absence of a transcript, an appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court s rulings. Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108 n.1, ¶ 8, 118 P.3d 621, 623 n.1 (App. 2005). CONCLUSION ¶8 The court s order modifying custody of J.H. and ordering Father to pay child support to Mother is affirmed. ¶9 Mother requests her attorneys fees and appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-324 (Supp. 2010). costs on Considering the parties financial resources and Father s failure to provide a transcript of the proceedings in superior court and to comply with the Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure ( ARCAP ), 4 we will in our discretion award an amount of reasonable attorneys fees to Mother contingent upon her compliance with ARCAP 21. Mother is also entitled to an award of her taxable costs on appeal. ____/s/__________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Judge CONCURRING: ___/s/___________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge ___/s/___________________________ PHILIP HALL, Judge 5

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.