Background
Michael McCallum and Erin Costello are the unmarried parents of a son, Caleb (a pseudonym), born in 2012. After their relationship ended in 2015, the parties agreed in 2016 to joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time, with the Maricopa County Superior Court adopting that arrangement and ordering Father to pay child support. The 2016 order also prohibited either parent from using marijuana or alcohol within eight hours of caring for Caleb.
In 2024, Mother petitioned for sole legal decision-making, permission to relocate Caleb to California, and supervised-only parenting time for Father, citing an alleged domestic violence incident and concerns about Father’s drinking. The trial court initially issued temporary orders granting Mother sole legal decision-making and restricting Father to supervised parenting time, but later reversed those temporary measures after Father submitted uncontroverted evidence that no criminal charges arose from the incident and after a court-appointed advisor reported that twelve-year-old Caleb wanted to spend more time with Father.
Following a full trial, the superior court denied Mother’s relocation petition, found Father had not committed an act of domestic violence, and reinstated the 2016 joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time arrangement. The court also set an alternate parenting schedule for use if Mother chose to move to California on her own, and declined to modify child support given that Mother’s anticipated move would render any change non-continuing. Mother appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. On the request for an in camera interview with Caleb, the court held that A.R.S. § 25-405(A) grants the trial court discretion—not an obligation—to conduct such interviews, and that the court-appointed advisor’s report adequately captured Caleb’s preferences, making any interview unnecessary.
On the domestic violence presumption under A.R.S. § 25-403.03, the court held that the statutory rebuttable presumption against joint legal decision-making is triggered only when domestic violence is committed against the other parent. Because the alleged incident involved Father and his ex-girlfriend—not Mother—the presumption never arose and no written findings under § 25-403.03(E) were required.
On the substance-abuse presumption under A.R.S. § 25-403.04, the court held that Father’s 2022 DUI conviction fell outside the statute’s twelve-month lookback period measured from Mother’s 2024 petition, so the rebuttable presumption did not apply. The court further held that the trial court was entitled to credit Father’s voluntary blood-alcohol testing—which showed only two readings above zero across three months of daily tests—over Mother’s contrary evidence, and declined to reweigh that credibility determination on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Arizona’s domestic violence presumption under A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D) applies only when the violence was directed at the other parent in the custody case, not at a third party such as an ex-girlfriend.
- The substance-abuse presumption under A.R.S. § 25-403.04(A) is strictly time-limited: a DUI conviction more than twelve months before the petition is filed does not trigger it, regardless of other evidence of past drinking.
- A trial court has discretion to deny a request for an in camera child interview when a court-appointed advisor has already gathered and reported the child’s preferences.
- The court warned Mother—a self-represented litigant—that citation of cases for propositions they do not support, potentially through misuse of AI, may result in sanctions going forward, noting that self-represented parties are held to the same standards as attorneys.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of Arizona’s statutory presumptions in custody disputes involving domestic violence and substance abuse. Practitioners should note that the domestic violence presumption does not extend to violence committed against persons other than the opposing parent, and that the twelve-month window for substance-abuse convictions under § 25-403.04(A) is measured strictly, leaving courts to weigh more remote history through ordinary best-interests analysis rather than presumptions.
The court’s pointed warning about AI-assisted brief writing—issued to a self-represented litigant who cited cases for propositions they did not stand for—signals that Arizona appellate courts are prepared to impose sanctions for inaccurate legal citations regardless of how they are generated. This aligns with similar admonitions from courts across the country and underscores that citation accuracy remains a non-delegable professional obligation.