The Arizona Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision regarding custody and parenting time, rejecting a mother’s appeal to modify the existing arrangement. The case, *Celaya v. Rivero Quinteros*, centered on a dispute over legal decision-making and parenting time for a child whose parents share joint legal custody. The court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering equal parenting time, despite the mother’s arguments that the father’s parenting time should be limited.
Background of the Case
The parents, Anthony Celaya and Tamara Rivero Quinteros, have shared joint legal decision-making for their child since 2014. Initially, the child primarily lived with the mother, and the father had limited parenting time due to his work schedule. In 2021, the court modified the parenting time based on changes in the father’s employment, granting him more time with the child, particularly during summer breaks.
In 2023, the mother filed a petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support, seeking to have the final say in parenting decisions and reduce the father’s parenting time. The father responded by requesting to have the final say in legal decision-making and seeking equal parenting time. After an evidentiary hearing in 2024, the trial court maintained joint legal decision-making but modified parenting time to provide the father and mother with equal time throughout the year. The mother then appealed the trial court’s decision.
The Mother’s Arguments and the Court’s Response
The mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting her final say in legal decision-making and by granting equal parenting time. She claimed the court’s decision lacked substantial evidence, ignored relevant evidence, and committed legal errors.
The Court of Appeals addressed each of the mother’s claims.
Insufficient Evidence
The mother argued the trial court’s decision was not supported by sufficient evidence, specifically regarding the shared legal decision-making and equal parenting time. She contended that the record did not support the court’s findings.
The appeals court rejected this argument, stating that the mother’s arguments essentially asked the court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own judgment. The court emphasized that its role is not to reweigh evidence but to determine whether the trial court’s decision was reasonably supported by the record. The court found that the record did, in fact, contain evidence supporting the trial court’s decision for joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time.
The court explained that in determining joint legal decision-making, the trial court found that the parents had been able to cooperate in decision-making and that joint decision-making remained logistically possible. The court noted that the parents had worked through their differences and reached agreements.
Regarding equal parenting time, the court found that the child had a good relationship with both parents, was close with extended family on both sides, and was adjusted to both homes. The appeals court stated that proceedings to determine parenting time are not a contest to decide who is the better parent. The court found that the trial court was not obliged to infer that the father was not “interested in the child’s best interest.”
Failure to Consider Evidence
The mother also claimed the trial court failed to consider evidence relevant to the child’s best interests. She argued that the court’s decision to award equal parenting time suggested it ignored evidence that “negatively reflected” on the father.
The Court of Appeals found no merit in this argument. It stated that the fact that a court doesn’t agree with a party’s position doesn’t mean it failed to consider the evidence. Instead, it means the court reached a different conclusion after considering the evidence. The court found that the trial court had the discretion to view the evidence and its implications differently and that there was no abuse of discretion.
Legal Error
The mother argued the trial court committed legal error by modifying parenting time without a change in circumstances, failing to explain why equal parenting time was in the child’s best interest, and denying her motion for additional findings.
The Court of Appeals addressed each of these claims.
* Changed Circumstances: The court noted that in the first stage of modifying parenting time, the court must determine if there has been a change of circumstances that materially affects the child’s welfare. The court found that the mother had waived this argument because she never raised it before the trial court. The court also noted that the record reasonably supports a finding that circumstances had changed.
* Best Interest Findings: The mother argued the trial court erred because it “failed to state why an equal schedule was in the child’s best interest.” The appeals court found that the trial court’s findings, which described the child’s healthy relationship with both parents and adjustment to both homes, readily explained why an order for joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time would be in the child’s best interests.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the lower court had not abused its discretion. The court denied the mother’s request for attorney’s fees, citing the unreasonableness of her positions in the appeal. The father was awarded costs.