Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
v.
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM DECISION
T H O M P S O N, Judge:
2
SARBU v. CARP
Decision of the Court
dollars. The court also ruled that neither party owed past due child
support.
DISCUSSION
I. Motions to Continue
9 Once a matter is set for trial, the superior court may not grant
a continuance except upon written motion setting forth sufficient grounds
and good cause, or as otherwise ordered by the court. Ariz. R. Fam. L. Pro.
77(C)(1). We will not disturb the courts ruling on a motion to continue trial
3
SARBU v. CARP
Decision of the Court
absent an abuse of discretion. Dykeman v. Ashton, 8 Ariz. App. 327, 330, 446
P.2d 26, 29 (1968). Because father offered a verified pleading rebutting
mothers assertion that her newborn child remained in the hospital, we find
no abuse of discretion in the courts denial of mothers first motion to
continue. We also find no abuse of discretion in the courts denial of
mothers second motion, which was filed the evening before trial and did
not show good cause why mother could not proceed on the previously-
scheduled date.
12 Mother testified that she did not work because she had a
newborn baby who had difficulties at birth; additionally, she needed to care
for the parties child every other week when she exercised parenting time.
Mother did not present any evidence that, as of the time of trial, her infant
had a medical condition or other special needs that prevented her from
working or otherwise made obtaining childcare inappropriate. She
4
SARBU v. CARP
Decision of the Court
speculates that if she sought employment, the cost of childcare would meet
or exceed her potential income, but did not provide any evidence regarding
the childcare cost she would incur for the parties school-aged child during
her parenting time. Father presented evidence that he did not have any
childcare expenses for the parties child.
3 This courts recent opinion in Nia v. Nia, 1 CA-CV 16-0380 FC, 2017
WL 2590760, at *4, 20 (Ariz. App. June 15, 2017), states that the superior
court is required to make findings regarding the factors set forth in A.R.S.
25-320(D) when it deviates from the Guidelines. Mother did not argue
that the court erred by failing to make such findings and therefore waived
any such argument.
5
SARBU v. CARP
Decision of the Court
meet the childs necessities of life. It further detailed that fathers child
support obligation under the Guidelines would be $42.99, and after
deviation it is zero. Given this explanationwhich, based on our review,
is supported by the record the court made the requisite findings and did
not abuse its discretion by reducing fathers child support obligation to
zero.
6
SARBU v. CARP
Decision of the Court
court denied her request for spousal maintenance as a sanction because she
failed to comply with its order directing certain pre-trial filings, because
there is no indication that the court entered its ruling as a sanction for
mothers non-compliance with its order.
CONCLUSION
evidence on the issue of child support, see Bujanda v. Montgomery Ward &
Co., 125 Ariz. 314, 316, 609 P.2d 584, 586 (App. 1980) (stating that although
generally amendments to conform to the evidence presented at trial are to
be liberally allowed, a court should not permit amendment when one party
would be prejudiced).