Background
Saman and Yuliya Farnoush married in 2012 and have two minor children together. Yuliya petitioned for dissolution of marriage in 2022. In July 2025, while the dissolution case was pending, Saman filed a petition for an order of protection against Yuliya, alleging four separate incidents of harassing behavior. The trial court granted the petition ex parte, prohibiting Yuliya from contacting Saman except through “Our Family Wizard” to discuss the children. Yuliya was permitted to call the children via WhatsApp during Saman’s parenting time.
At the evidentiary hearing, Saman testified that in January 2025, Yuliya moved to require him to submit to a hair follicle drug test, alleging drug abuse in front of the children. Two days before the hearing on that motion, the Department of Child Safety received an anonymous report about his alleged drug use. Saman testified he knew of no one else who would make such a report, and believed it was Yuliya because she had previously made multiple drug allegations against him. He presented evidence of two negative hair follicle tests from December 2024 and January 2025.
Yuliya testified she had lived with Saman for ten years and witnessed him using marijuana and pills in her presence and the children’s presence. She denied ever contacting DCS and testified she believed he was using drugs based on information from an ex-babysitter. The trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Yuliya knowingly made a false report to DCS that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed, humiliated, or distressed, and continued the protective order.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the protective order. The court held that making a false report to a social service agency constitutes harassment under A.R.S. § 13-2921(A)(4), and when the parties have a child in common, harassment qualifies as domestic violence under A.R.S. § 13-3601(A), justifying an order of protection.
The appellate court deferred to the trial judge’s credibility determinations, declining to reweigh witness credibility on appeal. Because the trial record contained sufficient evidence supporting the court’s finding that Yuliya knowingly made a false report to DCS—including Saman’s testimony about the timing and circumstances of the anonymous report, his negative drug tests, and his belief that Yuliya was the only likely source—the trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the protective order.
The court declined to address Yuliya’s constitutional arguments regarding prior restraint and freedom of speech, holding they were waived for not being fully briefed at trial and raising no issue of statewide importance. Similarly, her claim of privilege for statements to DCS was waived for not being raised before the trial court. The court also denied her request for attorneys’ fees, noting that order-of-protection proceedings are separate from dissolution proceedings and require specific statutory authorization.
Key Takeaways
- False reports to the Department of Child Safety or other social service agencies constitute harassment under Arizona law when made with knowledge of their falsity.
- Harassment qualifies as domestic violence when the parties have a child in common, providing grounds for protective orders even absent physical contact.
- Appellate courts give substantial deference to trial judges’ credibility determinations in protective order proceedings and will not reweigh witness testimony on appeal.
- Constitutional arguments and legal theories not fully developed or raised at trial are waived on appeal in family law cases and will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision provides important guidance on the scope of harassment as domestic violence in family law disputes. By holding that knowingly false reports to child protective agencies constitute harassment qualifying for protective orders, Arizona courts recognize an abuse category relevant to high-conflict divorces where one party weaponizes reports to social services. The opinion clarifies that such orders can issue based on reputational harm and emotional distress, not merely physical danger or direct threats.
The ruling also reinforces the appellate standard of review in protective order cases: trial courts’ credibility determinations receive significant deference, and appellate courts will affirm orders supported by record evidence even when evidence conflicts. This reflects policy favoring finality and deference to judges who observe witness demeanor. Additionally, the decision demonstrates Arizona courts’ reluctance to entertain constitutional challenges to protective order restrictions when not properly raised and briefed at trial, limiting appellate reconsideration of such orders.