Kelly v. Kelly (2021)

In doing so, a “court must strive to marshal, inspect and analyze the relevant and admissible evidence needed for it to reach a well-informed decision in the child’s best interests.” Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 375, ¶ 18 (App. 2021).

See Kelly, 252 Ariz. at 376 , 503 P.3d at 827 (“But the myopic and combative tactics of intransigent parents cannot deprive their child of a well-informed custody decision anchored in the child’s best interests.”); cf. Rolley v. Sanford, 126 Md.

Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 375, ¶ 16 (App. 2021). ¶13 The superior court must allocate marital property equitably and “without regard to marital misconduct.” A.R.S. § 25-318(A).

Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 376, ¶ 21 (App. 2021) (allowing the superior court to “impose a progression of monetary sanctions on contemptuous parents”). ¶17 Wife also argues the court abused its discretion by sanctioning her for not filing a joint pre-trial statement.

Any error about that issue is waived. 5 LOPEZ v. TINNEAN Decision of the Court sanction barring a finding of contempt, Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 376, ¶ 21 (App. 2021) (“The superior court may . . . impose a progression of monetary sanctions on contemptuous parents . . . .” (emphasis added)), or whether the court has the authority to enforce a prospective sanction without a judgment, cf. A.R.S. § 25-503(I) (The legislature established, by statute, that each child support…

Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 375, ¶ 16 (App. 2021).

See Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 375, ¶ 18 (App. 2021) (“A child’s best interests reign supreme in custody disputes.”). ¶7 “[A] parent is entitled to due process whenever his or her custodial rights to a child will be determined by a proceeding.” Smart v. Cantor, 117 Ariz. 539, 542 (1977).

See, e.g., A.R.S. § 25-403(A) (legal decision-making and parenting time); A.R.S. § 25-403.01(B) (“level of decision-making”); A.R.S. § 25-403.02 (parenting plans); A.R.S. § 25-404 (temporary orders); A.R.S. § 25- 407(C) (costs and expenses); A.R.S. § 25-407(D) (“public hearing”); A.R.S. § 25-408(G) (relocation); A.R.S. § 25-411 (modification); A.R.S. § 25-410(B) (judicial supervision); A.R.S. § 25-414(A) (visitation or parenting time violations); A.R.S. § 25-415(B)(3) (sanct…

See Kelly v. Kelly, 252 Ariz. 371, 375, ¶ 18 (App. 2021) (stating that determinations must be made for the best interests of the children). ¶11 DCS also argues Mother waived any challenge to the order excusing DCS from providing reunification services, including visitation, because she did not file a special action or appeal that order.