Arizona Divorce & Family Law Blog : Commentary on Arizona divorce, child custody, paternity, child support & family law litigation. : Arizona Family Law Lawyer & Attorney : Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC

As for the underlying facts, Mother and Father have three children in common. Mother petitioned for dissolution in 2003. The parties disagreed regarding custody of the children. An evidentiary hearing was held. The court awarded sole legal custody to Father and granting Mother parenting time. The court found that because there had been a significant history of domestic violence between the parties, an award of joint custody was prohibited by Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 25-403(E) and Mother's mental health issues did not support awarding her sole custody. In March 2006, the court adopted the parties' Parenting Plan and allowed Father to have sole legal custody of the children in Oregon. The court ordered Mother would have parenting time in Oregon with 48 hours' notice to Father.

In April 2008, Father petitioned to change Mother's parenting time to supervised parenting time. Mother filed a petition to modify child custody, seeking sole legal custody of the children. The court set an evidentiary hearing on both parties' petitions and referred them to Conciliation Services for a parenting conference. After the hearing, the court denied Mother's petition to modify and ordered that her parenting time must be supervised. The court also ordered that before Mother could exercise her parenting time, she undergo a psychological assessment to rule out any pathology that could pose a risk to the children's safety and well-being. In support of its ruling, the court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in Conciliation Services' Parenting Conference Report. Mother timely appealed the court's decision.

The court's order reflects that it considered both parties' testimony and arguments as well as the Parenting Conference Report dated August 15, 2008. The court adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Parenting Conference Report, which included detailed and specific findings as to each of the statutory factors contained in A.R.S. § 25-403(A). In addition, the court made further findings regarding certain specific circumstances that affect the children's best interests, in particular Mother's lack of recent contact with the children and her alleged mental health problems.

Nevertheless, Mother contends the court's findings that Mother acknowledged she had not received any mental health treatment since June 2004 and had not spent any time with the children since 2006 were incorrect. She alleges she testified that she had been seen and treated by three doctors and visited the children in 2006.

The Court of Appeals held that "[a] party arguing that a superior court ruling was not supported by the evidence must provide a certified transcript of the evidentiary hearing on appeal and, if he or she fails to do so, we will assume the evidence was sufficient to support the court's findings. As Mother has not provided a copy of the transcript from the evidentiary hearing, we presume the evidence supports the family court's findings."

In Gersten v. Gersten, the Arizona family court recognized the ability of the Court to award support to a parent that is providing support to the disabled adult child.  Gersten stated that the current statute regarding child support for an adult child superseded prior case law which required an order for custody or guardianship of the disabled adult child before support could be ordered.

If a case is brought for child support for an adult child, the court may require that the adult child be joined in the action if the disabled child does not have a legal custodian or guardian as any ruling for child support would affect the child’s best interests.  Additionally the Court may determine that the support should be paid directly to the disabled adult child or to the parent caring for the child. 

If you have any questions regarding child support, please contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC - Arizona Divorce & Family Law Firm.

This article was written by Leslie A. Satterlee, Esq., an attorney at Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.  Ms. Satterlee's practice focuses on Arizona divorce and family law.

 The Arizona Court of Appeals recently rendered a decision dealing with the issue of Arizona child support.  In East v. Matthews, the Arizona Court of Appeals reaffirmed that the standard of living that the child would have enjoyed had the family remained intact and lived together applies to all children, whether the parents were married at one time or were never married (paternity cases). The court also held that a parent seeking a monetary award greater that what would be presumtively correct under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines must prove to the trial court why an increase in the child support award would be in the child's best interests.  One way for a parent to do this would be to establish what standard of living the child would have enjoyed if the parents relationship remained intact and both the parents and the child resided together.

Other factors can also impact the child support calculation in Arizona. For example, the definition of gross income and adjusted gross income as used in the Guidelines do not have the same meaning as when they are used for tax purposes. Gross income for child support calculation purposes includes income from any source and may include but is not limited to income from salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, annuities, capital gains, social security benefits, workers compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, recurring gifts, prizes and spousal maintenance (alimony). Also, cash value shall be assigned to in-kind or other non-cash benefits. Normally, the Court will not attribute income greater than that which would have been earned from full time employment. Each parent shall have the right to choose to work additional hours through overtime or at a second job without increasing the child support award.

Defining income is not always easy. In the case of Hetherington v. Hetherington, the trial court was instructed that it must consider the amount an employer contributes toward a party's benefits in determining a party's income for purposes of computing child support. Benefits that must be considered include contributions to retirement income and health insurance. Workers compensation insurance contributions do not need to be considered. The trial court may consider a deviation from the child support guidelines if the inclusion of the benefits would artificially inflate a parent's income. One particular element of the child support calculation formula concerns a situation in which child support is paid for two children and the oldest child is emancipated. Does the child support amount automatically decrease in light of a parent's continuing duty to pay child support for the remaining minor child? The answer is no. In the case of Guerra v. Bejarano, the appellate court determined that in such a situation the parent was required to make a written request to the Court for modification of child support and in so doing, allow the Court to apply the child support guidelines to calculate a new child support obligation. Statutes prohibiting retroactive modification of child support to a date prior to the date in which a written request for modification is filed, means in effect that a parent paying child support should not simply assume that child support will automatically be decreased when the oldest child is emancipated. The support payor must be proactive in filing the request to recalculate child support.

The single mother and her 16-month-old daughter, Savannah, lived in San Antonio, Texas, where Dotson worked on a military base as an intensive care nurse. They were staying with Dotson's brother, Tony, for a few days.  Watch why Dotson's disappearance puzzles investigators »

Dotson had recently emerged from a court battle with Ed Vehle, Savannah's father. Vehle, who also lived in San Antonio, was ordered by the court to pay $10,000 in back child support, as well as $900 each month. Dotson won the court order two months before she disappeared.

Dotson was just months away from completing her military duty and was trying to decide whether she would move back to her hometown in Colorado or remain in San Antonio.

"She asked me to look after Savannah for a couple hours and she walked out that door and we never saw her again," Tony Dotson added. "She would never have intentionally left Savannah behind like that." Police agree.

Since Dotson vanished, there has been no activity on her bank accounts, credit cards or cell phone, police said. Her case is still an open missing persons investigation being handled by the Jefferson County homicide department.

"Unfortunately, we have no real leads as to who is responsible for Dotson's disappearance," said sheriff's office spokeswoman Jacki Kelley.

"She could be alive and being held against her will. She could have been kidnapped and then murdered. We are not ruling anything out at this time," Kelley said.

For several weeks after Dotson's disappearance, Vehle refused to answer questions. He retained counsel. In mid-December 2006, Vehle and Jay Norton, his attorney, met with police, answering all their questions.

Norton said they were able to provide investigators with receipts and cell phone records accounting for Vehle's whereabouts. Police confirmed that Vehle was nowhere near Colorado before, during or after Dotson's disappearance.

After Dotson's disappearance, Vehle decided to go to court to pursue full custody of his daughter. Dotson's parents had been taking care of Savannah. The court last year gave Vehle shared custody with Dotson's parents.

Family and police urge anyone with information about the whereabouts of Nonnie Dotson to call the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office tip line at (303) 271-5612.