Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Nicholas

Court of Appeals of Arizona, First Division

October 13, 2015

In re the Matter of: DEON P. NICHOLAS, Petitioner/Appellee,
v.
PHILLIP H. NICHOLAS, Respondent/Appellant.

Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2012-004193 The Honorable Jay R. Adleman, Judge

Law Office of Laura Gillis, Phoenix By Laura E. Gillis Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Gillespie, Shields, Durrant & Goldfarb, Mesa By Mark A. Shields Co-Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee

The Murray Law Offices, PC, Scottsdale By Stanley D. Murray Counsel for Respondent/Appellant

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

JOHNSEN, JUDGE.

¶1 Phillip Nicholas ("Father") appeals from the superior court's order granting a request by Deon Nicholas ("Mother") to modify parenting time and its order granting him partial attorney's fees. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Mother and Father have three minor children. In June 2013, the superior court issued a dissolution decree ("Decree") awarding joint legal decision-making authority. It further ordered that "the minor children shall remain in California with Mother until or about July 1, 2014 when Father retires from the Military and relocates to Arizona thereafter, at which time the children shall be returned to Arizona."

¶3 Less than a year after the court issued the Decree, Mother filed a petition (the "Petition") asking the court to set aside its legal decision-making order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative, she requested to be permitted to relocate to California, where she and the children were living, because of an asserted substantial and continuing change in circumstances.

¶4 After ascertaining its jurisdiction and taking evidence, the court granted Mother's request to relocate the children to California. The court issued a long-distance parenting plan that designated Mother as the primary residential parent and established a visitation schedule for Father.

¶5 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2015) and -2101(A)(1) (2015).[1]

DISCUSSION

A. Subject Matter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.