Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division, Department C
In re the Marriage of: KATHERINE WENDY SIGMON, Petitioner/Appellee,
WILLIAM RANDOLPH SIGMON, Respondent/Appellant.
Not for Publication -Rule 28, Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. FC2006-052833 The Honorable Stephen J. Kupiszewski, Judge Pro Tem The Honorable Jay M. Polk, Judge
William Randolph Sigmon Cottonwood Appellant in Propria Persona
Katherine W. Sigmon Massey Scottsdale Appellee in Propria Persona
SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Presiding Judge
¶1 William Randolph Sigmon (Father) appeals the superior court's orders addressing various issues, including parenting time, past due child support, division of expenses, the appointment of a therapeutic interventionist and denying Father's motion for a new trial on these same issues. Finding no error, the orders are affirmed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Katherine W. Sigmon (Mother) and Father were married in 1998 and are the parents of two daughters born in 1999 and 2001 respectively. In August 2006, Mother filed a petition for dissolution and by early December 2006, the court entered a consent dissolution decree resolving all outstanding issues, including parenting time and child support. Unfortunately since 2008, there have been many disagreements between the two, yielding more than 250 superior court docket entries.
¶3 Based on an allegation that Father inappropriately touched one daughter, in March 2011, Mother filed a petition to amend parenting time and enforce child support. A flurry of filings by Mother and Father followed and, after an October 27, 2011 evidentiary hearing, the court took the matters under advisement.
¶4 On January 13, 2012, having considered the evidence and arguments, the superior court issued a signed minute entry that, as relevant here, (1) denied Father's request for appointment of a therapeutic interventionist; (2) awarded sole custody of the children to Mother; (3) required Father to pay expenses for unreimbursed medical expenses and health insurance premiums; (4) held Father in contempt for failing to pay child support; (5) allocated certain therapy costs and (6) awarded Mother attorneys' fees. Father filed a timely motion for new trial, which was denied on March 21, 2012.
¶5 Father timely appealed from the denial of his motion for new trial and the January 13, 2012 minute entry. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) 12-2101(A)(5)(a)(2013).
I. Appellant's Brief.
¶6 An opening brief, among other things, is required to "concisely and clearly set forth" the issues presented for review, a statement of facts relevant to those issues and an argument "with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied on." Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 13(a)(4), (5), (6). Issues not fairly raised in the opening brief are waived. See Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 50, n.3, ¶ 9-10, 219 P.3d 258, 260 n.3 (App. 2009). Although Father's pro se opening brief contains four pages of issues, the legal argument is limited to two pages citing two cases and one statute. Viewed most favorably to Father, the issues properly raised in this appeal are assertions that the superior court:
1. Did not issue rulings on all pending requests;
2. Did not make findings required by A.R.S. § ...