Background
Patrick Nilles and Miranda South share a child born in 2013. In February 2024, Nilles petitioned to modify parenting time and child support, alleging that South’s alcohol abuse constituted a continuing and substantial change in circumstances. He sought reduced parenting time for South and alcohol testing.
The same day, the child separately told a school counselor that South abused alcohol, had driven while intoxicated, and had become increasingly physically aggressive. After initially denying ex parte relief, the superior court held a temporary-orders hearing, reduced South’s parenting time, and required alcohol testing. At a later two-day evidentiary hearing, the court considered testimony and documentary evidence, including investigations by a court-appointed advisor and the Department of Child Safety and more than 4,000 negative alcohol-test results from April 2024 through September 2025.
The superior court ultimately denied the petition, finding no significant and continuing change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. It found the child’s statements uncorroborated and not credible, and it later denied Nilles’s motion to alter or amend the judgment under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 83.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Although Nilles’s opening brief did not comply with appellate briefing requirements, the court declined to treat his arguments as waived because the appeal concerned a child’s best interests.
The appellate court held that Nilles had not shown clear error in the superior court’s credibility findings or an abuse of discretion in its determination that no material change in circumstances had occurred. Because Nilles failed to provide transcripts of the evidentiary hearing, the court presumed the missing transcripts supported the ruling, including the superior court’s reliance on the court-appointed advisor’s testimony. The appellate court also refused to reweigh the counselor’s communications, the investigative evidence, or the alcohol-test results.
Because sufficient evidence supported the denial of the modification petition, the court also upheld the denial of Nilles’s Rule 83 motion. It denied South’s request for appellate attorney fees but awarded her recoverable costs as the prevailing party.
Key Takeaways
- A parent seeking to modify parenting time must first establish a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare before the court reaches the child’s best interests.
- An appellate court generally will not reweigh conflicting evidence or second-guess the superior court’s witness-credibility determinations.
- An appellant who omits relevant hearing transcripts risks a presumption that the missing record supports the superior court’s ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden facing a parent who seeks to modify parenting time based on allegations of substance abuse or mistreatment. Reports of serious conduct may justify temporary safeguards, but they do not necessarily establish the continuing, material change required for a final modification when investigations do not corroborate the allegations and extensive testing points the other way.
The memorandum decision is not precedential under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c), but it underscores the practical importance of preserving and supplying a complete appellate record when challenging factual and credibility findings.