Pruett v. Beletz ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                       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    UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
    IN THE
    ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION ONE
    In re the Matter of:
    KELSEY ANN PRUETT, Petitioner/Appellee,
    v.
    JOSHUA RYAN BELETZ, Respondent/Appellee.
    ROBERT BELETZ, Intervenor/Appellant.
    No. 1 CA-CV 16-0375 FC
    FILED 4-11-2017
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
    No. FC2011-006520
    The Honorable Michael J. Herrod, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    COUNSEL
    Robert Beletz, Cobb, CA
    Intervenor/Appellant in Propria Persona
    Holly L. Marshall, Phoenix
    Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee
    PRUETT et al. v. BELETZ
    Decision of the Court
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Judge Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court, in which
    Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge James P. Beene joined.
    D O W N I E, Judge:
    ¶1           Robert Beletz (“Grandfather”) appeals the superior court’s
    order denying his motion to reinstate grandparent visitation rights. For
    the following reasons, we affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    ¶2            In 2011, Grandfather entered into a written agreement with
    Kelsey Ann Pruett (“Mother”) and Joshua Ryan Beletz (“Father”) for
    visitation with Granddaughter.1 In February 2014, Mother petitioned to
    suspend Grandfather’s visitation, citing numerous concerns, including
    erratic and threatening behavior, arrests, and drug usage. The superior
    court found that an emergency existed and suspended Grandfather’s
    visitation “until further order of the Court.”
    ¶3            On April 7, 2014, the grandparents, through counsel, filed a
    “Motion to Withdraw as Intervenors.” The motion advised that they had
    initially sought visitation because Father was in prison. Father had since
    been released, and the grandparents asked that they “be removed as
    Intervenors in the case and their separate legal rights as Grandparents be
    terminated.” The superior court thereafter dismissed the underlying
    grandparent visitation petition.
    ¶4            On April 7, 2016, Grandfather filed a motion seeking to
    reestablish visitation. The superior court denied that motion, concluding
    it did not “meet the requirements of Arizona Revised Statutes section
    25-409 for a grandparent visitation petition.” Grandfather’s timely appeal
    followed.
    1      The child’s grandmother was also awarded visitation, but she is not
    a party to this appeal.
    2
    PRUETT et al. v. BELETZ
    Decision of the Court
    DISCUSSION
    ¶5           We review the superior court’s ruling for an abuse of
    discretion. See Graville v. Dodge, 
    195 Ariz. 119
    , 128, ¶ 38 (App. 1999).
    Grandparents seeking visitation must comply with statutory
    requirements, including filing a petition that is “verified or supported by
    affidavit” and that includes “detailed facts supporting the petitioner’s
    claim.” A.R.S. § 25-409(D). Notice to the child’s parents is also
    mandated.2 A.R.S. § 25-409(D)(1).
    ¶6           The superior court did not abuse its discretion by denying
    Grandfather’s motion. The filing was neither verified nor supported by an
    affidavit, and it lacked “detailed facts” demonstrating a basis for
    grandparent visitation. The one-page motion stated:
    In February 2014 my daughter was removed from my wife’s
    care. I had not seen my daughter since July 2013 and she
    was removed by CPS in February 2014. My daughter being
    removed by/from CPS. A motion was brought before this
    court so I was not allowed to see [Grandaughter] because
    my disposition at that time wasn’t good for her to be
    exposed to.
    I have fulfilled all requirements by Dept of Child Safety
    including drug testing (no failed tests), domestic violence
    class. (Never have been convicted of any) and completed
    substance abuse rehabilitation. I would like my rights
    reinstated to spend time with my granddaughter.
    ¶7             On appeal, Grandfather does not articulate the legal issues
    presented for our review or cite any legal authority. It is not this Court’s
    responsibility to develop a party’s argument. Ace Auto. Prods., Inc. v. Van
    Duyne, 
    156 Ariz. 140
    , 143 (App. 1987). A party must present significant
    arguments, set forth his or her position on the issues raised, and include
    citations to relevant authorities, statutes, and portions of the record. See
    ARCAP 13(a)(6), (b)(1); see also Cullum v. Cullum, 
    215 Ariz. 352
    , 355 n.5,
    ¶ 14 (App. 2007) (Appellate courts “will not consider argument[] posited
    without authority.”); Higgins v. Higgins, 
    194 Ariz. 266
    , 270, ¶ 12 (App.
    1999) (holding a pro se litigant to the same standard as an attorney).
    2    Grandfather’s petition reflects only that he mailed a copy to
    Mother’s attorney.
    3
    PRUETT et al. v. BELETZ
    Decision of the Court
    Grandfather also fails to address the deficiencies in his motion that led to
    its denial. Under these circumstances, no basis exists for setting aside the
    superior court’s order.
    CONCLUSION
    ¶8           We affirm the judgment of the superior court. Mother seeks
    an award of attorneys’ fees and costs on appeal pursuant to A.R.S.
    § 25-324(B)(2). In the exercise of our discretion, we will award a
    reasonable sum of fees because Grandfather’s appeal is not “based on
    law.” Mother is also entitled to recover her taxable costs. Both awards are
    contingent on compliance with ARCAP 21.
    AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
    FILED: AA
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1 CA-CV 16-0375-FC

Filed Date: 4/11/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021