Background
Taino Flores (Father) and Ashley Florian (Mother) are the parents of a child born in 2022. Shortly after the child’s birth, Father petitioned for sole legal decision-making authority and supervised-only parenting time for Mother. The parties initially reached a 2022 consent judgment providing for joint legal decision-making, alternating weekly unsupervised parenting time, and Father paying $312 per month in child support. The judgment also included specific protocols for child exchanges at Arizona Mills mall and required the parents to communicate at least twice per week about the child’s status and wellbeing.
In 2024, Mother petitioned to modify the judgment. The superior court in Maricopa County held an evidentiary hearing at which Father testified and submitted an updated affidavit of financial information. Mother invoked her Fifth Amendment right, declined to testify, and introduced no evidence. Following the hearing, the court awarded Father sole legal decision-making authority, ordered Mother to pay $294 per month in child support (imputing full-time minimum wage earnings to her), and reduced Mother’s parenting time to two short supervised windows per week — Tuesday evenings from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. and Sunday afternoons from noon to 4:00 p.m.
Mother appealed, raising claims of due process violations, error in the legal decision-making modification, miscalculation of child support, wrongful denial of a fee waiver, insufficient specificity in the parenting-time order, and judicial bias.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court on all issues except the parenting-time plan, which it remanded for additional findings. The court rejected Mother’s due process claim because she was given notice and an opportunity to testify and present evidence but chose not to do so. Her challenge to the legal decision-making modification failed because the superior court had made detailed findings on all eleven best-interests factors under A.R.S. § 25-403(A), including findings that Mother was no longer involved in the child’s life and had refused to address substance abuse and mental health issues. The child support calculation was upheld because the court properly imputed minimum wage earnings to Mother under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines when she submitted no financial information of her own.
The court did find reversible error in the parenting-time order’s lack of statutory specificity. Arizona law requires parenting plans to address at least eight categories of information under A.R.S. § 25-403.02(C), including exchange procedures, communication protocols, and holiday schedules. The modified order — a single sentence designating Mother’s supervised hours — failed to clarify whether prior exchange and communication requirements from the 2022 consent judgment remained in effect and gave neither parent adequate guidance on their respective obligations.
The court also warned Mother that her briefs cited case names that did not support the cited propositions and may not exist, and cautioned that providing inaccurate legal authority in the future could result in sanctions. Father was awarded his attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal based on Mother’s unreasonable positions.
Key Takeaways
- A parenting-time modification order must independently satisfy all eight elements of A.R.S. § 25-403.02(C); a bare schedule of hours is insufficient when it leaves unresolved whether prior exchange and communication protocols remain operative.
- A parent who declines to testify or submit financial evidence at a modification hearing cannot successfully challenge on appeal the adverse inferences the court drew from that silence, including imputation of full-time minimum wage income for child support purposes.
- An appellant who fails to provide transcripts of the trial court proceedings is deemed to concede that the missing record supports the lower court’s findings.
- Courts may sanction self-represented litigants for citing non-existent or inapposite authority; pro se parties are held to the same appellate standards as attorneys.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Arizona courts modifying parenting arrangements must issue a comprehensive, self-contained parenting plan — not merely a schedule amendment that leaves prior orders in an ambiguous state. When a modification substantially changes the nature of a parent’s time (here, from alternating unsupervised weeks to brief supervised windows), the new order must address exchange logistics, communication requirements, and other statutory elements anew, rather than leaving parents to puzzle out which provisions of an earlier order survive.
The case also serves as a practical reminder of the evidentiary risks a party takes by invoking the Fifth Amendment and presenting no evidence in a civil family court proceeding. While the privilege applies, the opposing party’s uncontested evidence and financial disclosures will carry the day, and appellate courts will presume the missing record supports the trial court’s conclusions.