Background
Khristen McAfee and Lisa Strothers share a minor daughter. In 2019, McAfee petitioned the Maricopa County Superior Court to establish legal decision-making and parenting time. The court found Arizona was the child’s home state, awarded Strothers sole legal decision-making authority, established parenting time, and ordered McAfee to pay $699 per month in child support. Neither parent appealed that final order.
Over the following years, the superior court modified parenting time, legal decision-making, and child support while repeatedly finding that Arizona had jurisdiction. In 2025, after another modification proceeding, the court ordered McAfee to pay $36,053 in child-support arrears and $11,462.27 in interest through monthly payments of $150. McAfee appealed, arguing that the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. McAfee provided no record citations in his opening brief and did not supply a transcript of the hearing at which he orally challenged jurisdiction. Because the appellate record was incomplete, the court presumed the missing transcript supported the superior court’s finding that it had jurisdiction. The appellate court also lacked jurisdiction to review later rulings on McAfee’s written jurisdictional motions because the superior court had not ruled on those motions when he filed his notice of appeal.
Conducting its own jurisdictional review, the court found nothing in the record showing that the superior court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The child had lived in Arizona for at least six months before the initial petition, satisfying the UCCJEA’s home-state requirement, and no evidence showed that another state held exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Although an earlier Arizona petition had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the six-month residency requirement was later met, curing the earlier jurisdictional shortcoming. McAfee therefore failed to establish that the superior court lacked jurisdiction when it entered the rulings at issue.
Key Takeaways
- Arizona had initial UCCJEA jurisdiction because the child had lived in the state for at least six months before the 2019 proceeding.
- An earlier jurisdictional dismissal did not control once the UCCJEA’s six-month home-state requirement was satisfied.
- An appellant who omits a relevant hearing transcript risks a presumption that the missing record supports the superior court’s ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a prior dismissal for lack of child-custody jurisdiction does not permanently bar a later Arizona proceeding when subsequent facts satisfy the UCCJEA. It also underscores the importance of timely appealing jurisdictional determinations and supplying a complete appellate record.
The decision is designated as not for official publication and is nonprecedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), although it may be cited as that rule permits.