in the Interest of C.H., a Child

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Family Rule 91’s procedural requirement to file a petition seeking to modify child support is not inconsistent with A.R.S. § 25-403.09(A) because both require notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard
• characterizing this language as setting the “earliest effective date” for modification of a support obligation
• directing parties to file financial affidavits after hearing at which court raised issue of child support sua sponte “was not a proper substitute for providing the parties a full opportunity to be meaningfully heard” on the issue
• “[O]nce the court granted Mother’s petition to modify custody, it was required to address child support.”
• “A trial court errs if it modifies child support without . . . allowing the parties to gather and present their evidence.”
• The obligation to modify child support arises upon granting a petition to modify parenting time under A.R.S. § 25-403.09(A).

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).