Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 01-31-2023
Case Style:
In the Matter of: Justin Freitas v. Rayna Graham
Case Number: 1 CA-CV-22-0446 FC
Judge: McMurdie
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona on appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Phoenix, Arizona family law lawyers represented Petitioner and Respondent in a custody dispute.
Rayna Graham ("Mother") and Father have one biological child in common ("Child"), born in 2016. Mother and Father were not together as a couple at Child's birth. Though Father visited the hospital the day Child was born, following a disagreement at the hospital, Mother and Father had no further contact until Child was four years old.
Rayna Graham ("Mother") and Father have one biological child in common ("Child"), born in 2016. Mother and Father were not together as a couple at Child's birth. Though Father visited the hospital the day Child was born, following a disagreement at the hospital, Mother and Father had no further contact until Child was four years old.
Father petitioned to establish paternity in November 2021, seeking an order for legal decision-making and parenting time. Mother responded by seeking sole legal decision-making and child support. At the pretrial conference, the parents stipulated to paternity, and the court held an evidentiary hearing to address parenting time, legal decision-making, and child support.
After considering "the demeanor of the witnesses, . . . the exhibits as well as the case history, and . . . the parties' arguments and agreements," the superior court made factual findings and issued its order. The order addressed the best-interest factors under A.R.S. § 25-403(A) and "all factors that are relevant to the child's physical and emotional well-being." The court noted that a child's best interests is the primary consideration when awarding legal decision-making authority and parenting time. See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102, ¶ 18 (2003). The court acknowledged that "absent evidence to the contrary, 'it is in a child's best interest: (1) To have substantial, frequent, meaningful and continuing parenting time with both parents[; and] (2) To have both parents participate in decision making about the child.'" See A.R.S. § 25-103(B).
The court noted that Mother and Father could not agree on a parenting plan. It found that "Joint Legal Decision Making may be logistically possible in time . . . at present, the Parties have no history of the meaningful or significant communication necessary to successfully co-parent." The court found Mother "has a close and bonded relationship with Child." And Child is "close to Mother's extended family" but "has not met Father's family." The court also noted Mother's concern that "Child does not know Father" and her request for a graduated parenting plan to ensure Child's best interests.
The court awarded sole legal decision-making to Mother but advised her that Father is still entitled "to have access to information and documentation" related to Child. The court found that Father is entitled to "reasonable parenting time," but because "Father has not exercised significant or consistent Parenting Time with Child at any stage of her life," it ordered a "graduated schedule" that would increase Father's parenting time through three phases "to permit Father and Child to adjust to consistent Parenting Time." Finally, the court adopted the child support calculation per the Guidelines, obligating Father to pay $574 per month with another $20 per month until the past support balance of about $4,000 is paid in full.
Outcome: Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: