Background
Dennise Solano (Mother) and Marcelino Zamora Felix Jr. (Father) share one child born in 2017. A 2018 court order established joint legal decision-making with Mother holding final decision-making authority if parties disagree, and essentially-equal parenting time under a one-week-on, one-week-off schedule. In July 2024, the court granted Father an order of protection against Mother following a contested hearing.
In October 2024, Mother filed a petition to modify parenting time, alleging the child slept on the floor at Father’s residence, Father failed to reliably administer the child’s medications, Father neglected the child’s hygiene needs, and Father regularly left the child in the care of Father’s wife—despite Mother previously obtaining an order of protection against that individual. Mother also alleged the child had unexplained bruises after Father’s custody and feared staying with Father.
Mother requested the court grant her “first right of refusal,” limit Father’s parenting time to alternate weekends from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and adjust the child-support obligation. Father disputed all allegations as fabricated and requested sole legal decision-making authority and majority parenting time.
The Court’s Holding
The trial court, after a contested evidentiary hearing in September 2025, found no change in circumstances to justify modifying the parenting-time plan or legal-decision-making order. The court affirmed the original custody arrangement and found that Father was more likely than Mother to allow the child meaningful and consistent contact with the other parent, despite Mother’s evidence to the contrary. The court removed only a provision guaranteeing the parties one hour of daily electronic communication with the child while in the other’s physical care.
Although the trial court found that Mother had committed domestic violence against Father (based on the upheld order of protection), it performed the required analysis under A.R.S. § 25-403.03 and concluded Mother successfully rebutted the statutory presumption against joint legal decision-making. The court determined that awarding Mother joint legal decision-making authority was in the child’s best interest. The court found Mother more likely than Father to ensure the child’s mental and physical health needs were met, including medication administration and medical appointments.
On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court found Mother raised no debatable issues and, because the child’s best interests were at stake, did not apply the doctrine of implied confession of error when Father failed to file a responsive brief. The appellate court presumed the missing hearing transcript supported the trial court’s factual findings.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s findings regarding parenting time modification are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will be affirmed if supported by any reasonable evidence in the record.
- When a party seeking appellate review fails to provide a complete transcript, the appellate court presumes the missing portions of the record support the trial court’s findings, particularly in cases involving the best interests of a child.
- Under A.R.S. § 25-403.03, a finding of domestic violence creates a presumption against joint legal decision-making, but a parent can rebut that presumption by demonstrating that joint decision-making serves the child’s best interests.
- A trial court’s determination regarding which parent is more likely to facilitate the other parent’s contact with the child is a factual finding entitled to deference on appellate review.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Arizona’s application of its domestic violence statute in the context of child custody disputes. While A.R.S. § 25-403.03 establishes a presumption against awarding joint legal decision-making when significant domestic violence has been found, the statute does not operate as a per se bar. Courts retain discretion to award joint decision-making if the parent who committed domestic violence demonstrates that such an arrangement serves the child’s best interests. This case illustrates that trial courts will consider multiple best-interest factors—including which parent is more likely to facilitate the child’s relationship with the other parent, the child’s health and mental-health needs, and the quality of the parents’ communication—in determining whether to rebut the statutory presumption.
The decision also underscores the appellate burden placed on parents challenging custody decisions: the failure to provide a complete hearing transcript generally results in affirmance of the trial court’s order, as appellate courts presume missing evidence supports the lower court’s findings. This places a procedural premium on parents’ compliance with appellate record-preservation rules.