Background
Matthew Riordan and Tara Kangas married in April 2021 and had a son, W.R., born in January 2022. Ten months after W.R.’s birth, Kangas (Mother) moved to Alaska with the child without Father’s consent. Father petitioned for dissolution in January 2023, and the Maricopa County Superior Court entered temporary orders noting it had not approved the relocation. Mother separately petitioned for permission to relocate W.R. to Alaska.
Following trial, the superior court issued a May 2024 dissolution decree denying Mother’s relocation petition, concluding she had not met her burden of showing relocation was in W.R.’s best interests under A.R.S. §§ 25-403(A) and -408(I). A key premise of the court’s ruling was the “possibility” that Mother might return to Arizona if relocation were denied — a finding that directly contradicted Mother’s repeated trial testimony that she had no intention of returning. The court gave Mother until June 1, 2024 to decide whether to return.
On parenting time, the court ordered W.R. to reside primarily with Father in Arizona if Mother remained in Alaska, granting Mother only two six-week periods per year in Alaska plus additional time in Arizona. The court declined to set a holiday schedule, stated the parties should follow a regular weekday/weekend schedule for summer and vacation, and ordered Mother to bear all of the child’s travel costs. Mother timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals vacated the relocation denial and the parenting time order, remanding for further proceedings. The court held that the superior court abused its discretion and committed legal error by failing to provide the statutorily required reasons — under A.R.S. § 25-403(B) — explaining why denying relocation and imposing a severely restricted long-distance parenting schedule were in W.R.’s best interests. The court also found several of the superior court’s factual findings were either contrary to the evidence or legally deficient: it improperly premised its ruling on the speculative possibility of Mother’s return to Arizona, failed to properly analyze the realistic parenting-time factor in light of Father’s own request for equal time regardless of location, and improperly disregarded the child’s developmental-needs factor based solely on W.R.’s young age — a consideration the statute requires regardless of age.
The appellate court further held that the superior court’s refusal to include a holiday schedule violated the mandatory requirement of A.R.S. § 25-403.02(C)(3) that every parenting plan include a practical holiday and school vacation schedule. On the travel-cost issue, however, the court affirmed: because the parties had only addressed equal cost-splitting in the context of a granted relocation and never addressed the denied-relocation scenario, the record did not support a finding of abuse of discretion in ordering Mother to bear W.R.’s travel costs. The remainder of the decree was affirmed.
On remand, the superior court must evaluate the statutory relocation and best-interests factors in light of Mother’s actual residence in Alaska, articulate specific reasons why relocation is or is not in W.R.’s best interests, explain why the parenting time plan serves W.R.’s best interests, include a holiday schedule, and recalculate child support as necessary. The court retains discretion to reopen the evidentiary record.
Key Takeaways
- A.R.S. § 25-403(B) requires Arizona family courts to make specific, on-the-record findings explaining why a relocation or parenting-time decision is in the child’s best interests — generic or conclusory rulings are insufficient and constitute legal error.
- A court’s factual finding must be grounded in the actual evidence; here, basing the denial of relocation on the possibility of Mother’s voluntary return directly contradicted her unequivocal trial testimony and was an abuse of discretion.
- All statutory best-interests factors under §§ 25-403(A) and -408(I) must be considered; a court may not dismiss a factor — such as the child’s developmental needs — simply because the child is young.
- Arizona parenting plans must include a holiday schedule under A.R.S. § 25-403.02(C)(3); declining to do so because the child is not yet school-age does not satisfy the statutory mandate.
- This decision is non-precedential under Arizona Rule of the Supreme Court 111(c) and may be cited only as authorized by that rule.
Why It Matters
Riordan v. Kangas reinforces that Arizona family courts must rigorously document their best-interests analysis in relocation cases — especially when a denial will dramatically curtail one parent’s time with the child. The decision signals that appellate courts will closely scrutinize whether statutory factors were genuinely considered and whether the court’s factual premises hold up against the trial record. For practitioners, it underscores the importance of building a complete evidentiary record on every § 25-403(A) and § 25-408(I) factor and pressing the trial court for explicit written findings on each.
The case also serves as a practical reminder that courts and counsel must address all contingencies — including what happens to parenting time and travel costs if relocation is denied — before the trial concludes. The appellate court’s affirmance of the travel-cost allocation turned entirely on the parties’ failure to litigate that scenario below, leaving Mother responsible for the full cost of interstate travel in a situation neither side had clearly anticipated in its trial submissions.