Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department D
In Re the Matter of: WILLIAM G. LLEWELLYN, Petitioner/Appellant,
LEISA A. GUMBINER, Respondent/Appellee.
Not for Publication -Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC2011-000178 The Honorable James T. Blomo, Judge
William G. Llewellyn Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant in Propria Persona.
Viles Law Offices, LLC Phoenix By James E. Viles Attorneys for Respondent/Appellee
ANDREW W. GOULD, Presiding Judge.
¶1 Appellant William Llewelyn ("Father") appeals the family court's judgment regarding parenting time, child support, and its award of attorneys' fees and costs in favor of Appellee Leisa Gumbiner ("Mother"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural Background
¶2 Father and Mother lived together from 1998 until 2005 in Montana. Although Father and Mother never married, their relationship produced two children: A.E.G., who was born in 2002, and J.M.G., who was born in 2004 (the "Children"). In approximately 2005 or 2006, Father and Mother separated.
¶3 Despite their efforts to reconcile, Father and Mother were unable to do so. Nonetheless, when Mother advised Father that she was moving to Phoenix, Father decided to move to Phoenix to be near the Children. Father moved to Phoenix in 2007, and Mother moved to Phoenix in the summer of 2008.
¶4 When Mother and Father first moved to Phoenix, they lived close to each other. As a result, Father had parenting time of the Children approximately 2-3 days a week, typically Monday through Wednesday. However, this arrangement ended in the summer of 2009, primarily because Mother moved to Sun City. The distance between Father's home and the Children's new school was considerable, making it difficult for Father to get the Children to school on time. As a result, the Children were tardy for school several times. Given this situation, the parties agreed to change Father's parenting time from 2-3 days during the week to every weekend.
¶5 In spring of 2011, Mother changed Father's parenting time schedule from every weekend to every other weekend. Mother made this change because her parenting time of the Children, which was limited to weekdays when she was working and the Children were attending school, left her with no "fun time" to enjoy with the Children on the weekends.
¶6 In response to Mother's further limitation on his parenting time with the Children, Father filed a petition to establish custody, parenting time, and child support on April 15, 2011. Father's original petition sought both sole custody and joint custody over the Children. Father amended his petition on April 29, 2011, seeking "50 percent" shared custody with Mother.
¶7 On December 23, 2011, the family court ordered Mother and Father to attend a parenting conference to resolve their custody and parenting time disputes. At the conference, Mother and Father agreed to share joint legal custody of the Children, and they also agreed to a summer and holiday parenting time schedule. However, the parties were not able to agree on a parenting time schedule for the academic year. The family court adopted the custody and partial parenting time agreement on March 14, 2012.
¶8 On April 4, 2012, the family court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the outstanding issues concerning parenting time and child support. On April 19, 2012, the family court issued its ruling, ordering that during the academic year Father be afforded parenting time with the Children every other weekend, as well as two nights a week after school until 7:30 p.m. The family court also ordered Father to pay Mother current child support in the amount of $360.38 per month, and retroactive child support in the amount of $15, 298.24. Finally, the court granted Mother's request for attorney fees and costs pursuant ...