Background
Tia Carrick and Gabriel Villarreal, never-married parents of two minor children, were involved in a domestic violence matter. In June 2024, Carrick obtained an order of protection against Villarreal on behalf of herself and her children, with the children’s school designated as a protected location. In September 2025, Carrick moved to make the school’s address confidential, which the trial court granted. One week later, Villarreal requested a hearing to contest the order.
At the contested hearing, after receiving testimony from both parties, the trial court found good cause to continue the order of protection against Villarreal but removed the children and their school from the order’s protections. Carrick appealed, arguing the court erred in removing her children from the protective order.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that because Carrick failed to include the hearing transcript in the appellate record, it would presume the transcript supported the trial court’s findings and conclusions. The court noted that Carrick bore the responsibility of providing the record transcripts containing evidence relevant to the judgment appealed.
The court further held that even though Villarreal failed to file an answering brief—which could constitute a confession of error—it would not apply that doctrine because the children’s best interests were involved. The court stated that when a trial court is presented with conflicting evidence in protective order proceedings, the court has discretion to weigh that evidence, and appellate courts defer to the trial court’s weighing of conflicting evidence and factual determinations.
Key Takeaways
- An incomplete appellate record—particularly missing hearing transcripts—can be fatal to an appeal; appellate courts presume missing transcripts support the trial court’s decision
- Even when an appellee fails to file a response brief, appellate courts will review protective order modifications on the merits when children’s interests are at stake, declining to apply the confession of error doctrine
- Trial courts retain broad discretion in weighing conflicting evidence in domestic violence protective order proceedings, and that discretion is reviewed only for abuse
Why It Matters
This decision underscores the practical importance of preserving a complete appellate record in protective order cases. For appellants challenging protective order modifications, failure to include hearing transcripts effectively forecloses meaningful appellate review, as courts will presume the missing record supports the trial court’s judgment. Practitioners should ensure all relevant proceedings are transcribed and included in the appellate record.
The decision also reflects Arizona courts’ approach to protective order modifications: trial courts retain substantial discretion in balancing competing interests, particularly when children’s safety is implicated. Even where an appellate court might normally apply a confession of error doctrine based on an appellee’s failure to brief the issues, that doctrine yields when a child’s best interests are at stake.