Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 19-0529 No. 1 CA-CV 19-0530 (consolidated)
09-29-2020
In the Matter of the Name Change of: M.H., S.H., Applicants DAVIA MINTER, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JOSHUA HARRYMAN, Defendant/Appellant.
COUNSEL Davia Minter, Kingman Plaintiff/Appellee Joshua Harryman, Douglas Defendant/Appellant
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
No. S8015CV201900365
The Honorable Eric Gordon, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL Davia Minter, Kingman
Plaintiff/Appellee Joshua Harryman, Douglas
Defendant/Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. MORSE, Judge:
¶1 Joshua Harryman ("Father") appeals the superior court's orders changing the names of his two minor children, M.H. and S.H. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2 In April 2019, Davia Minter ("Mother") filed separate applications to change the names of M.H. and S.H. The superior court required Mother to notify Father of the pending applications. Father filed a written objection arguing that changing the children's names was not in the children's best interests. Mother then filed a disclosure statement that included her planned exhibits and a summary of her expected testimony. Father moved to strike the disclosure statement because it referenced supposedly inadmissible evidence.
¶3 Father, Mother, and both children testified at a contested hearing on the applications. After the hearing, the superior court found that changing the children's names was in their best interests. Father timely appealed the superior court's orders changing the children's names, and we have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1).
DISCUSSION
¶4 Father argues the superior court erred because: 1) the court improperly denied him discovery; 2) Mother failed to serve him with certain documents; 3) his constitutional rights were violated because he was unable to present defense witnesses; 4) the court never ruled on his written objection or his motion to strike Mother's disclosure statement; 5) evidence was improperly admitted at the contested hearing; and 6) changing the children's names was not in their best interests.
¶5 Before turning to Father's arguments, we note that Mother has failed to file an answering brief. While we have discretion to consider such failure as a concession of error, see ARCAP 15(a)(2); Gonzales v. Gonzales, 134 Ariz. 437, 437 (App. 1982), we decline to do so because the children's best interests are at issue, see Hoffman v. Hoffman, 4 Ariz. App. 83, 85 (1966) (discussing the obsolete but analogous Rule of the Supreme Court 7(a)(2)).
¶6 We must affirm if the superior court's order is supported by reasonable evidence. See Pizziconi v. Yarbrough, 177 Ariz. 422, 426 (App. 1993) ("[T]he judgment will be upheld if there is reasonable evidence to support it."). We review legal questions de novo. See Lincoln v. Holt, 215 Ariz. 21, 23, ¶ 4 (App. 2007).
¶7 As to Father's first three claims, the record does not reflect that Father raised his discovery, service, or constitutional arguments with the superior court. We find Father has waived these arguments by raising them for the first time on appeal. Airfreight Exp. Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc., 215 Ariz. 103, 109, ¶ 17 (App. 2007).
¶8 Father's arguments regarding his written objection and his motion to strike Mother's disclosure statement are without merit. The superior court overruled Father's written objection when it entered the orders changing the children's names. And we assume the court overruled the motion to strike and considered the evidence in the declaration. See Sitton v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co., 233 Ariz. 215, 222, ¶ 23 (App. 2013) ("Here, we assume that because the court did not expressly rule on [appellant's] motion[] to strike, the court considered the evidence in the declaration[].").
¶9 Father's evidentiary claims also fail. Father did not include a transcript of the contested hearing as part of the record in this appeal. "A party is responsible for making certain the record on appeal contains all transcripts or other documents necessary for us to consider the issues raised on appeal. When a party fails to include necessary items, we assume they would support the court's findings and conclusions." Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70, 73 (App. 1995) (citations omitted). Assuming arguendo that Father's evidentiary objections have merit, we presume the record otherwise contains reasonable evidence to support the superior court's orders. See Kohler v. Kohler, 211 Ariz. 106, 108, ¶ 8 n.1 (App. 2005) ("In the absence of a transcript, an appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court's rulings."); see also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 61 ("Unless justice requires otherwise, an error in admitting or excluding evidence — or any other error by the court or a party — is not grounds for . . . vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order.").
¶10 Similarly, we must reject Father's argument that changing the children's names was not in their best interests because we assume the transcript supports the superior court's rulings. Baker, 183 Ariz. at 73.
CONCLUSION
¶11 For the above-stated reasons, the superior court's orders changing the names of M.H. and S.H. are affirmed.