RIVERS v. GLADNEY

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: ) ) MICHAEL RIVERS, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) CARLA GLADNEY, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 08/16/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls No. 1 CA-CV 11-0768 A DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC2007-054160 The Honorable Stephen J. P. Kupiszewski, Judge Pro Tem AFFIRMED Michael Rivers Petitioner/Appellant in propria persona Phoenix Carla Gladney Respondent/Appellee in propria persona Phoenix D O W N I E, Judge ¶1 Michael Rivers ( Father ) appeals from an modifying custody, parenting time, and child support. order For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father together. and Carla Gladney ( Mother ) have two sons In 2007, Father filed a Petition to Establish Child Custody and Parenting Time. The parents later agreed to joint custody and a parenting time schedule, which the court approved. The court also ordered Father to pay child support. ¶3 to In January 2009, the parents filed separate petitions modify custody, parenting time, and child support. They subsequently agreed to modify parenting time but keep all other orders in force. ¶4 In petition. 1 The court approved the parties agreement. November She 2010, sought sole Mother filed custody, a new supervised modification and reduced parenting time for Father, and $300 per month in child support. After an evidentiary hearing ( September 2011 hearing ), the court awarded Mother sole custody, reduced Father s parenting time, and ordered Father to pay child support. appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Father timely Arizona Revised Statutes ( A.R.S. ) section 8-235. 1 Mother also filed a modification petition in August 2010, but it was never served. 2 DISCUSSION 2 ¶5 We review the court s modification orders for an abuse of discretion. See Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520, ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999) (child support); Armer v. Armer, 105 Ariz. 284, 289, 463 P.2d 818, 823 (1970) (parenting time); Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 51, ¶ 11, 219 P.3d 258, 261 (App. 2009) (custody). We review constitutional claims de novo. Egan v. Fridlund-Horne, 221 Ariz. 229, 232, ¶ 8, 211 P.3d 1213, 1216 (App. 2009). 2 Opening briefs must clearly identify and support an appellant s arguments on appeal. The failure to so argue a claim usually constitutes abandonment and waiver of that claim. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 452 n.9, ¶ 101, 94 P.3d 1119, 1147 n.9 (2004); see also ARCAP 13(a)(6), (b)(1); MT Builders, L.L.C. v. Fisher Roofing, Inc., 219 Ariz. 297, 304-05 n.7, ¶ 19, 197 P.3d 758, 765-66 n.7 (App. 2008) (arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived); Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270, ¶ 12, 981 P.2d 134, 138 (App. 1999) (holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney). Father s opening brief falls far short of these standards. We have not addressed arguments raised for the first time in the reply brief. See State v. Aleman, 210 Ariz. 232, 236, ¶ 9, 109 P.3d 571, 575 (App. 2005); Anderson v. Country Life Ins. Co., 180 Ariz. 625, 636, 886 P.2d 1381, 1392 (App. 1994). Additionally, although Father offered transcripts of two hearings, they were not prepared by an authorized transcriber and are not part of the superior court s record. See ARCAP 11(b)(1)(3) (electronically recorded court hearings must be transcribed by an authorized transcriber ); Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 30(a)(2) ( authorized transcriber is a certified reporter, an individual or service under contract with an Arizona court, or an individual employed by a court whose official duties include the preparation of transcripts). We therefore decline to consider them. 3 I. Custody Award ¶6 sole Father custody contends because the change of visitation. ¶7 the court only erred motion he in awarding received Mother was for The record does not support this claim. Mother s petition clearly stated that she was seeking sole custody and a decrease in Father s parenting time. record issue. a demonstrates Father s awareness that custody The was at He made two motions -- one oral and one written -- to dismiss Mother s petition. His written motion argued against Mother s request to chang[e] custody or parenting time and asked the court to keep the current custody, parenting time, and support orders in place or to set an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, the joint pretrial statement sets forth the parties differing positions regarding custody. ¶8 proper To the notice otherwise. extent of the Father suggests he did September hearing, the not record receive reflects He was served with the Order to Appear; Motion for Post Decree Orders; Post Decree Temporary Order; Petition to Modify; Notice of Affidavit Re: 411(L). Father hearing Filing Minor wherein Petition; Children. subsequently the court Child See Ariz. appeared set the at Support Rev. an September Father attended and participated in that hearing. 4 Worksheet; Stat. April 2011 19, § 252011 hearing. ¶9 Father also contends that certain minute entries led [him] to believe that issues related Support would not be addressed. to Custody and Child He fails to expand upon this argument in the opening brief, and his citations to the record do not clarify his claim. The April 19 minute entry ordered the parties to prepare for the September 2011 hearing by filing a joint prehearing statement that included, inter alia, a description of disputed custody, access or visitation issues and a specific party. proposal for custody and visitation by each Mother complied with this directive. ¶10 Father also argues the court erred by not making specific findings on the record regarding custody modification. 3 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-403(B) (when custody court must make certain findings on the record). is disputed, However, the minute entry from the September 2011 hearing states that the court A.R.S. enter[ed] § its 25-403. findings on the Because we lack record a with regard certified to hearing transcript, we presume that the official record would support the family court s statement. See State ex rel. Baumert v. Superior Court (Rapp), 118 Ariz. 259, 260, 576 P.2d 118, 119 3 Father raises no specific issues about the parenting time or child support decisions, and we decline to address his claim that the court erred simply because evidence offered on these topics was inconsistent. See O Hair v. O Hair, 109 Ariz. 236, 240, 508 P.2d 66, 70 (1973) (citations omitted) (appellate courts do not re-weigh evidence on appeal). 5 (1978) (in the absence of a transcript, appellate court presumes that the record supports the trial court s rulings); Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73, 900 P.2d 764, 767 (App. 1995) (same). II. Jurisdiction ¶11 Lastly, Father argues his due process rights were violated because the family court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. ¶12 He We conclude otherwise. Father was served with the petition on March 29, 2011. thereafter appeared and participated without contesting jurisdiction. in the proceedings By doing so, Father subjected himself to the court s jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Dep t of Econ. Sec. v. Burton, 205 Ariz. 27, 29, ¶¶ 8-9, 66 P.3d 70, 72 (App. 2003) (citations omitted) ( [A]ny action on the part of a party except to object to personal jurisdiction that recognizes the case as in court will constitute a general appearance subjecting the person to the court s jurisdiction). CONCLUSION ¶13 The judgment of the family court is affirmed. /s/ MARGARET H. DOWNIE, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ PETER B. SWANN, Presiding Judge /s/ PATRICIA A. OROZCO, Judge 6

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.