Steve Nash Child Support

7/27/2019 Steve Nash Child Support

1/26

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF ARIZONA

DIVISION ONE

I n r e t he Mar r i age of : ) No. 1 CA- CV 12- 0039) 1 CA- CV 12- 0076STEPHEN J OHN NASH, ) 1 CA- CV 12- 0077

) ( Consol i dat ed)Pet i t i oner / Appel l ee, )

) DEPARTMENT Cv. )

) O P I N I O N)

ALEJ ANDRA AMARI LLA NASH, ))

Respondent / Appel l ant . )))

__________________________________)

Appeal f r om t he Super i or Cour t i n Mar i copa Count y

Cause No. FC2010- 007378

The Honor abl e Thomas L. LeCl ai r e, J udge

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED

Di cki nson Wr i ght / Mar i scal Weeks PLLC Phoeni xBy Robert L. Schwart z

St even D. Wol f sonAnne L. Ti f f en

At t or neys f or Pet i t i oner / Appel l ee

Hal l i er & Lawr ence, PLC Phoeni xBy Angel a K. Hal l i er

And

J ones, Skel t on & Hochul i , P. L. C.By Ei l een Denni s Gi l Br i de

At t or neys f or Respondent / Appel l ant

J O H N S E N, Chi ef J udge

DIVISION ONE

FILED:

RUTH A. WILLINGHAM,

CLERK

BY:

7/23/2013

mjt


2/26

2

1 Thi s i s an appeal f r om a chi l d- suppor t or der enter edi n t he di ssol ut i on of a mar r i age of t wo per sons of consi der abl e

weal t h. We hol d t he super i or cour t i n such a case may not l i mi t

chi l d suppor t t o an amount r equi r ed t o meet t he chi l dr en s

mi ni mal needs. To t he cont r ar y, chi l d suppor t shoul d per mi t t he

chi l dr en of such a mar r i age t o cont i nue t o enj oy t he reasonabl e

benef i t s they had whi l e t hei r par ent s wer e mar r i ed. Because t he

super i or cour t di d not appl y t hi s pr i nci pl e, we vacat e and

r emand i t s chi l d- suppor t or der . Addr essi ng t wo post - decr ee

or der s al so at i ssue on appeal , we af f i r m an or der pr ohi bi t i ng

t he par ent s f r om post i ng di spar agi ng r emar ks about each ot her on

soci al medi a, but vacat e a sua sponte or der bar r i ng t he par ent s

f r om di scl osi ng any document or i nf or mat i on i n any document

f i l ed i n t he pr oceedi ng. 1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2 St ephen J ohn Nash ( Father ) and Al ej andr a Amar i l l aNash ( Mot her ) mar r i ed i n 2005. I n 2010, when Fat her f i l ed f or

di ssol ut i on, t he par t i es had an i nf ant son and t wo si x- year - ol d

daught er s. Al t hough t he par t i es resol ved i ssues of cust ody and

parent i ng t i me by agr eement , t hey coul d not agr ee on chi l d

suppor t , and t he super i or cour t hel d a one- day t r i al on t he

i ssue.

1 I n a separate memorandum deci si on, we addr ess another i ssuear i si ng out of t he decr ee. See ARCAP 28( g) .


3/26

3

3 The par t i es j oi nt l y asked t he cour t t o cl ose t he t r i alt o t he publ i c, and i t di d so. Shor t l y af t er t he cour t i ssued

i t s j udgment and decr ee, i t r ei t er at ed a pr i or sua sponte order

t hat seal ed al l pr oceedi ngs and sua sponte ordered t hat

[ d] ocument s, r ecor ds, and t r anscr i pt s seal ed by the Cour t , and

i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he seal ed mat er i al , may not be

di ssemi nat ed t o any t hi r d par t y wi t hout an Or der of t he Cour t .

The cour t al so af f i r med a par ent i ng coor di nat or s r epor t t hat

r ebuked Mother f or t weet i ng a negat i ve remark about Fat her and

decl ar ed t hat she must st op usi ng soci al medi a t o di spar age

hi m.

4 We consol i dat ed Mot her s t i mel y appeal s of t he decr eeand t he post - t r i al or der s. We have j ur i sdi ct i on pur suant t o

Ar t i cl e 6, Sect i on 9, of t he Ar i zona Const i t ut i on, and Ar i zona

Revi sed St at ut es ( A. R. S. ) sect i ons 12- 120. 21( A) ( 1) ( West 2013)

and - 2101( A) ( 1) , ( 2) ( West 2013) . 2

DISCUSSION

A. Child Support.

1. Legal principles.

5 [ W] e wi l l not di st ur b a cour t s awar d of chi l dsuppor t absent an abuse of di scr et i on. Hetherington v.

Hetherington, 220 Ar i z. 16, 21, 21, 202 P. 3d 481, 486 ( App.

2 Absent mat er i al r evi si on af t er r el evant dat e, we ci t e ast at ut e s cur r ent ver si on.


4/26

4

2008) . We wi l l accept t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act unl ess t hey

ar e cl ear l y er r oneous, but we dr aw our own l egal concl usi ons

f r om f act s f ound or i mpl i ed i n t he j udgment . McNutt v. McNutt,

203 Ar i z. 28, 30, 6, 49 P. 3d 300, 302 ( App. 2002) .

6 Pur suant t o A. R. S. 25- 320( A) ( West 2013) , t hesuper i or cour t may or der ei t her or bot h par ent s owi ng a dut y of

suppor t t o a chi l d . . . t o pay an amount r easonabl e and

necessar y f or suppor t of t he chi l d. I n subpar t ( D) of t he same

st at ut e, t he l egi sl at ur e di r ect ed t he supr eme cour t t o

est abl i sh gui del i nes f or det er mi ni ng t he amount of chi l d

suppor t . A. R. S. 25- 320( D) . The r esul t i s t he Ar i zona Chi l d

Suppor t Gui del i nes ( Gui del i nes) , Appendi x t o A. R. S. 25- 320

( West 2013) . Id. The amount r esul t i ng f r om t he appl i cat i on of

[ t he] gui del i nes i s t he amount of chi l d suppor t or der ed unl ess a

wr i t t en f i ndi ng i s made, based on cr i t er i a appr oved by the

supr eme cour t , t hat appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes woul d be

i nappr opr i at e or unj ust i n a par t i cul ar case. A. R. S. 25-

320(D) .

7 The Gui del i nes est abl i sh a f r amewor k f or det er mi ni ngt he amount of chi l d suppor t consi st ent wi t h t he reasonabl e

needs of chi l dr en and t he abi l i t y of par ent s t o pay.

Gui del i nes, 1. The pr emi se of t he Gui del i nes i s t he I ncome

Shar es Model , whi ch i t sel f i s based on t wo pr i nci pl es: ( 1) The

t otal chi l d support amount appr oxi mates t he amount t hat woul d


5/26

5

have been spent on t he chi l dr en i f t he par ent s and chi l dr en wer e

l i vi ng t oget her , and ( 2) Each par ent cont r i but es hi s/ her

pr opor t i onat e shar e of t he t ot al chi l d suppor t amount . Id.,

Background.

8 At t ached t o t he Gui del i nes i s a Schedul e of Basi cSuppor t Obl i gat i on ( Schedul e) , whi ch sets out pr esumpt i ve

amount s of chi l d suppor t , cal l ed t he Basi c Chi l d Suppor t

Obl i gat i on, der i ved f r om t he par ent s combi ned gr oss i ncomes. 3

As t he parent s combi ned gr oss i ncome i ncr eases, so does t he

pr esumpt i ve Basi c Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on. The hi ghest

combi ned i ncome i n t he Schedul e i s $20, 000 per mont h. I f t he

par ent s combi ned gross i ncome exceeds $20, 000 per mont h, t he

pr esumpt i ve Basi c Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on i s t hat i dent i f i ed

f or a combi ned i ncome of $20, 000 per month. Id. 2( G) ( 2) , 8.

A parent may r equest an upward devi at i on f r om t he pr esumpt i ve

Basi c Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on by showi ng t hat a hi gher amount

i s i n t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l d. Id. 8.

9 As appl i cabl e her e, af t er det er mi ni ng t he Basi c Chi l dSuppor t Obl i gat i on f r om t he Schedul e, t he super i or cour t t hen

must add t o t hat f i gur e the cost of t he chi l dr en s medi cal ,

dent al and/ or vi si on i nsurance cover age, i f any and al so may

add chi l dcar e cost s appr opr i at e t o t he par ent s f i nanci al

3 The Schedul e al l ows f or cer t ai n deduct i ons i n a par ent sgr oss i ncome t hat ar e not r el evant her e. Gui del i nes, 7.


6/26

6

abi l i t i es and r easonabl e and necessar y educat i on expenses

when such expenses are i ncur r ed by agr eement of bot h parent s or

or der ed by t he cour t . Id. 9( A) , ( B) ( 1) , ( 2) . Except i n t he

event of a cour t - or der ed devi at i on, t he r esul t i ng sum i s t he

Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on, f or whi ch t he par ent s shar e

r esponsi bi l i t y i n pr opor t i on t o t hei r r espect i ve gr oss i ncomes.

Id. 10. 4

2. The courts calculation and division

of the Total Child Support Obligation.

10 Pur suant t o the Schedul e, when, as her e, t he par ent scombi ned mont hl y gross i ncome i s $20, 000 a mont h or more, t he

Basi c Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on f or t hr ee chi l dr en i s $2, 795. As

noted above, t o t hi s amount , t he cour t must add cer t ai n medi cal

and dent al expenses ( and may add chi l dcar e and educat i on

expenses) t o der i ve t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on.

11 The decr ee i n t hi s case acknowl edges t he chi l dren smont hl y medi cal and dent al i nsur ance expenses of $1, 314 and

educat i on expenses of $1, 750, and, accor di ng t o t he recor d,

mont hl y chi l dcare expenses were $2, 000. But t he r ecor d does not

show t hat t he cour t added t hose amount s t o t he Basi c Chi l d

4 When t he t wo parent s i ncomes are not equal , but t hechi l dr en wi l l spend an essent i al l y equal amount of t i me wi t heach par ent , t he t ot al chi l d suppor t amount shal l be di vi dedequal l y between the two househol ds and the parent owi ng thegr eat er amount shal l be ordered t o pay what i s necessar y t oachi eve t hat equal shar e i n t he ot her par ent s househol d. Id. 12 & Exampl e.


7/26

7

Suppor t Obl i gat i on, as t he Gui del i nes r equi r e. The chi l d

support worksheet t he cour t compl eted di d not t ake i nt o account

any of t hose expenses. I nst ead, t he worksheet endorsed t he

pr esumpt i ve Basi c Chi l d Support Obl i gat i on amount of $2, 795 as

t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on wi t hout r ecogni zi ng any

i nsur ance, educat i on and/ or chi l dcar e expenses.

12 As not ed, t he Gui del i nes al so r equi r e t he cour t t odi vi de t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on bet ween t he two

parent s based on t hei r pr oport i onate gr oss mont hl y i ncomes.

Al t hough t he super i or cour t i mput ed t o Mot her a speci f i c i ncome

i n excess of $20, 000 a mont h, i t di d not det er mi ne Fat her s

mont hl y gr oss i ncome; as a r esul t , i t coul d not and di d not

det er mi ne t he pr opor t i onat e r el at i onshi p bet ween t he par t i es

r espect i ve gr oss i ncomes.

13 Wi t hout maki ng a f i ndi ng of each parent s i ncome andt hen al l ocat i ng t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on i n pr opor t i on

t o t hei r r espect i ve i ncomes, as t he Gui del i nes i nst r uct , t he

decr ee or der ed Fat her t o cont i nue t o pay the chi l dr en s medi cal

and dent al i nsur ance expenses and t hei r educat i onal expenses.

The decr ee t hen cont i nued:

Fat her and Mot her wi l l di vi de al lr easonabl e and necessary non- covered heal t h-r el at ed expenses f or t he chi l dr en, 90%/ 10%;

Fat her and Mot her wi l l di vi de al l mut ual l yagr eed- upon ext r a- cur r i cul ar act i vi t i es f ort he chi l dr en, 90%/ 10%;


8/26

8

Fat her and Mot her wi l l di vi de t he par ent i ngcoor di nat or s f ees, 75%/ 25%; and

As t o al l ot her cost s and expenses

di vi si bl e bet ween t he par t i es notspeci f i cal l y addr essed her ei n, [ Fat her ]shal l pay 72% and [ Mot her ] shal l pay 18%. 5

The decr ee does not cl ar i f y t he nat ure of t he ot her cost s and

expenses di vi si bl e bet ween t he par t i es t o whi ch t he f i nal

pr ovi si on above appl i es, and at or al ar gument bef or e t hi s cour t ,

nei t her part y expr essed a cl ear underst andi ng of t he meani ng of

t he pr ovi si on. The par t i es do agr ee, however , t hat beyond t he

r esponsi bi l i t y f or i nsur ance, educat i on, heal t h- car e and

par ent i ngcoor di nat or expenses r eci t ed above, t he decr ee i mposes

no chi l d- suppor t obl i gat i ons on Fat her .

3. Failure to follow the process set out in the Guidelines.

14 Al t hough Mot her al so takes i ssue wi t h t he super i orcour t s r ej ect i on of her r equest f or an upwar d devi at i on i n

chi l d suppor t ( see infra 16- 20) , she ar gues t he cour t er r ed

i n t he f i r st i nst ance by f ai l i ng t o f ol l ow t he anal yt i cal

pr ocess set out i n t he Gui del i nes. See 8- 9 supra. Mother

cont ends t he cour t er r ed by f ai l i ng t o det er mi ne whet her

chi l dcar e cost s shoul d be added t o t he Basi c Chi l d Suppor t

Obl i gat i on i n cal cul at i ng t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on, by

5 I t i s not cl ear f r om t he r ecor d whet her t he cour t l at ercor r ect ed t he 72/ 18 di vi si on of expenses i n t hi s pr ovi si on t oanother t hat sums t o 100 percent .


9/26

9

f ai l i ng t o det er mi ne Fat her s mont hl y gr oss i ncome, and t hen by

f ai l i ng t o al l ocat e t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on bet ween

t he par t i es i n pr opor t i on t o t hei r mont hl y gr oss i ncomes.

15 As Mother argues, t he r ecor d does not demonst r ate t hatt he super i or cour t f ol l owed t he anal yt i cal pr ocess di ct at ed by

t he Gui del i nes, and t o t he ext ent t he cour t f ai l ed t o f ol l ow

t hat pr ocess, i t er r ed. See Little v. Little, 193 Ar i z. 518,

521, 6, 975 P. 2d 108, 111 ( 1999) ( Gui del i nes pr ovi de

pr ocedur al gui dance i n appl yi ng t he subst ant i ve l aw) . Fat her

cont ends t hat at t he end of t he day, t he cour t di d not abuse i t s

di scr et i on i n maki ng the payment or der s cont ai ned i n the decr ee.

I t may be that t he court woul d have come t o roughl y t he same

same concl usi ons had i t engaged i n t he anal ysi s t he Gui del i nes

r equi r e i t t o per f or m. On t hi s r ecor d, however , we cannot

di scer n whet her t hat i s so. Ther ef or e, on r emand, af t er

consi der i ng whet her an upwar d devi at i on i n Tot al Chi l d Suppor t

Obl i gat i on i s requi r ed, see infra 16- 20, and det ermi ni ng what

i nsurance, educat i on and chi l dcare expenses shoul d be added t o

t he Basi c Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on pur suant t o Gui del i nes, 9,

t he super i or cour t t hen shoul d det er mi ne Fat her s gr oss mont hl y

i ncome and al l ocate t he Tot al Chi l d Suppor t Obl i gat i on bet ween

t he par t i es i n pr opor t i on t o t hei r gr oss i ncomes. Af t er

per f or mi ng t hat di vi si on, t he cour t may or der t he par t i es t o


10/26

10

make speci f i c chi l d- suppor t payment s consi st ent wi t h t he out come

of i t s anal ysi s .

4. Upward deviation.

16 Mot her ar gues t he super i or cour t al so er r ed by f ai l i ngt o gr ant an upwar d devi at i on i n chi l d suppor t . The Gui del i nes

pr ovi de t hat a parent seeki ng more t han t he pr esumpt i ve chi l d-

suppor t amount der i ved f r om t he Gui del i nes and t he Schedul e

shal l bear t he bur den of pr oof t o est abl i sh t hat a hi gher

amount i s i n t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l dr en. Gui del i nes,

8. The super i or cour t has br oad l at i t ude t o f ashi on an

appr opr i at e awar d of chi l d suppor t , and we wi l l uphol d t he awar d

unl ess i t i s devoi d of compet ent evi dence. Jenkins v.

Jenkins, 215 Ar i z. 35, 37, 8, 156 P. 3d 1140, 1142 ( App. 2007)

( quot at i on omi t t ed) .

17 At t r i al , Mot her cal l ed Mi chael Mi skei , a cer t i f i edpubl i c account ant , who t est i f i ed t hat based on t he f ami l y s

hi st or i cal expendi t ur es, Mot her was ent i t l ed t o r ecei ve $22, 500

i n mont hl y chi l d suppor t . 6 On appeal , Mother argues t he super i or

cour t er r ed by hol di ng t hat because she f ai l ed t o pr ove she i s

ent i t l ed t o t hat pr eci se amount of chi l d suppor t , she was

6 Ther e i s some conf usi on i n t he r ecor d whet her Mi skei scal cul at ed number r epr esent ed hi s opi ni on of t he Tot al Chi l dSuppor t Obl i gat i on, t o be di vi ded bet ween Mot her and Fat her i npr opor t i on t o t hei r i ncome, or , as t he decr ee st at ed, wasi nt ended t o repr esent t he amount Fat her shoul d pay i n mont hl ysuppor t .


11/26

11

ent i t l ed t o no upwar d devi at i on of any amount . She poi nt s t o a

f oot not e i n t he decr ee st at i ng:

The Court det er mi nes t hat i t i s not up t o

t he Cour t t o cor r ect , r e- cal cul at e, orotherwi se adj ust t he amount sought i n t heupwar d devi at i on. By st at ut e, t he bur den ofest abl i shi ng t he need f or t he devi at i on i son t he par t y seeki ng t he devi at i on. Thus,i f t he amount sought i s i ncor r ect , i t i s f ort he pr of f er i ng par t y t o cor r ect not t heCour t .

18 As t he decree st ates, Mother had t he bur den t o pr ovet hat her r equest f or a hi gher amount of chi l d suppor t was i n t he

chi l dr en s best i nt er est s. Cont r ar y t o t he st at ement i n t he

f oot not e, however , not hi ng i n t he Gui del i nes or ot her l aw

pr ovi des t hat a parent who does not pr ove every penny of a

speci f i c r equest ed amount of upwar d devi at i on i s ent i t l ed t o no

devi at i on what soever . I nst ead, i n aski ng t he cour t t o est abl i sh

a chi l d- suppor t amount i n excess of t he amount der i ved f r om t he

Schedul e, Mother onl y had t o pr ove t hat some upward devi at i on

was i n t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l dr en. For i t s par t , as t he

t r i er of f act , t he super i or cour t shal l gr ant what ever amount of

upwar d devi at i on i t f i nds i s suppor t ed by t he evi dence under t he

appl i cabl e l egal pr i nci pl es.

19 Al t hough Fat her ar gues t hat not wi t hst andi ng t hef oot not e, t he super i or cour t went on t o concl ude t hat Mot her

f ai l ed t o pr ove any amount of upward devi at i on was appr opr i ate,

t he decr ee does not so st at e. To t he cont r ar y, t he decr ee


12/26

12

suppor t s Mot her s asser t i on t hat , consi st ent wi t h t he f oot not e,

t he cour t deni ed any upward devi at i on because i t f ound she had

not pr oved t hat t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l dr en r equi r ed t he

speci f i c amount of upwar d devi at i on she sought . For exampl e, i n

anal yzi ng t he key f act or under t he Gui del i nes, 8, of t he

needs of t he chi l dr en i n excess of t he pr esumpt i ve amount , t he

decr ee concl udes, [ t ] he Cour t di d not f i nd t hat [ Mot her ]

est abl i shed a need by the chi l dr en t o r ecei ve $22, 500 i n excess

of t he pr esumpt i ve amount . Lat er , t he decr ee st at es, THE

COURT FI NDS t hat [ Mot her] has not demonst r at ed t hat a chi l d

suppor t amount of $22, 500 i s necessar y or i n t he best i nt er est

of t he chi l dr en.

20 Because we cannot det er mi ne t hat t he court gave dueconsi der at i on t o Mot her s r equest f or an upwar d devi at i on i n

chi l d suppor t , we vacat e t he decr ee s t r eat ment of t hat i ssue

and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s

deci si on. Bel ow, we addr ess cer t ai n i ssues t hat may ar i se agai n

on r emand.

5. Mothers expert witness.

21 Al t hough t he super i or cour t concl uded t hat Mi skei squal i f i cat i ons and t est i mony di d not sat i sf y Ar i zona Rul e of

Evi dence 702, i t never t hel ess consi der ed Mi skei s t est i mony, but

ul t i mat el y decl i ned t o accept hi s opi ni ons because i t f ound t hey


13/26

13

wer e nei t her r el i abl e nor cor r ect . 7 Mother argues t he super i or

cour t er r ed i n r ul i ng t hat Mi skei was not qual i f i ed. She ar gues

Mi skei has t est i f i ed hundr eds of t i mes i n cour t s i n sever al

st at es, usi ng t he same t ype of i nf or mat i on he used her e.

Set t i ng asi de whet her Mi skei qual i f i ed as an exper t wi t ness

pur suant t o Rul e 702, t he cour t di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n

decl i ni ng t o accept hi s anal ysi s. Wi t hout recount i ng t he

par t i cul ar s, numer ous anal yt i cal f l aws r eveal ed dur i ng Mi skei s

cross- exami nat i on suppor t t he cour t s deci si on t o rej ect hi s

t est i mony.

6. The childrens needs.

22 I n consi der i ng Mother s r equest f or an upwar ddevi at i on i n chi l d suppor t pur suant t o 8 of t he Gui del i nes,

t he super i or cour t hear d t est i mony by Mot her and Fat her r el at i ng

t o t he st andar d of l i vi ng t he chi l dr en woul d have enj oyed i f

t he par ent s and chi l dr en wer e l i vi ng t oget her [ and] t he needs of

t he chi l dr en i n excess of t he pr esumpt i ve amount . Gui del i nes,

8. On appeal , Mother ar gues t he cour t er r ed because i t

consi dered onl y whether t he pr esumpt i ve chi l d- support amount was

suf f i ci ent t o sat i sf y t he chi l dr en s basi c needs. She poi nt s

t o t he concl usi on i n t he decr ee t hat , gi ven bot h par ent s

r esour ces, t he basi c needs of the children wi l l be mor e than

7 Tr i al i n t hi s mat t er occur r ed bef or e t he ef f ect i ve dat e oft he 2012 amendment s t o t he Ar i zona Rul es of Evi dence.


14/26

14

adequat el y met wi t hout an upward devi at i on. As Mother argues,

i n expl ai ni ng i t s anal ysi s, t he cour t descri bed t hi s f actor as

whet her addi t i onal money i s needed t o pr ovi de f or t he basi c

st andar d of l i vi ng f or t he mi nor chi l dr en. 8

23 Under t he ci r cumst ances pr esent ed here, t o t he ext entt he cour t r ej ect ed an upwar d devi at i on i n chi l d suppor t because

i t concl uded t he pr esumpt i ve amount sat i sf i ed t he chi l dr en s

basi c needs, i t er r ed. I n det er mi ni ng chi l d suppor t , t he

super i or cour t must consi der t he r easonabl e needs of t he

chi l dr en i n l i ght of t he par ent s r esour ces. I n det er mi ni ng

whet her an upwar d devi at i on i n chi l d suppor t i s appr opr i at e i n a

case such as t hi s, t he cour t must gi ve consi der abl e r egar d t o

t he r easonabl e benef i t s, beyond t hei r basi c needs, accor ded t o

t he chi l dr en dur i ng t he mar r i age. See Gui del i nes, Backgr ound

( The t otal chi l d support amount appr oxi mates t he amount t hat

woul d have been spent on t he chi l dr en i f t he parent s and

chi l dr en wer e l i vi ng t oget her . ) ; id. 8.

8 The r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat Fat her had of f er ed t o pay aspeci f i c amount of upwar d devi at i on i n chi l d suppor t , and i nconsi der i ng Mot her s r equest f or an upwar d devi at i on, t he cour tassumed t hat she woul d accept Fat her s of f er : I t i s especi al l yconcer ni ng t o the Cour t t hat [ Mot her ] di d not of f er any evi dencet hat t he chi l dr en wi l l have any r easonabl e mont hl y f i nanci alneeds i n excess of t he chi l d suppor t amount bei ng of f er ed by[ Fat her ] or why the best i nt er est s of t he chi l dr en mandat e mor echi l d suppor t t han of f er ed by [ Fat her ] . But t he cour t di d notorder Fat her t o make t he payment s he of f ered, and accor di ng tot he recor d, i n t he absence of Mother s accept ance of t hat amounti n set t l ement , he has not done so.


15/26

15

24 Even t hough t he cour t i n t hi s case r ej ect ed t heopi ni ons of Mot her s exper t wi t ness, i t r ecei ved consi der abl e

ot her evi dence of t he expenses of t he par ent s r espect i ve

househol ds i n Ar i zona and el sewher e. Both part i es agr eed t hey

want ed t o cont i nue t o expose t hei r chi l dr en t o di ver se cul t ur es

and cul t ur al event s. Whi l e t r avel expenses wer e a poi nt of

cont ent i on, Fat her di d not di sput e t hat t he chi l dr en shoul d

cont i nue t o enj oy regul ar ext ensi ve i nt er nat i onal t r avel ,

i ncl udi ng r egul ar vi si t s wi t h t hei r mat er nal r el at i ves i n Sout h

Amer i ca and Aust r al i a; and ot her t r avel , i ncl udi ng ski

vacat i ons; t he di sput e was onl y about t he nat ur e and st yl e of

t hat t r avel . Al t hough t he f ami l y may have spar ed f ew expenses

i n t he manner i n whi ch i t t r avel ed dur i ng t he mar r i age, Mot her

t est i f i ed t hat coach ai r pl ane t i cket s t o Sout h Amer i ca ar e

$1, 500 api ece. The super i or cour t seemed t o accept t hat t he

chi l dr en shoul d be abl e t o cont i nue t o t r avel ext ensi vel y,

not i ng t he Cour t under st ood Fat her s obj ect i on t o be t he manner

of t r avel . . . not t he desti nat i on. I n spi t e of t hi s f i ndi ng

and t he ot her evi dence i n t he recor d, however , t he cour t

appar ent l y di d not consi der t he f ami l y s demonst r at ed t r avel ,

ent ert ai nment and housi ng expenses i n determi ni ng whether t o

gr ant an upwar d devi at i on i n chi l d suppor t . See Gui del i nes 8

( cour t shoul d t ake i nt o account such f act or s as t he needs of

t he chi l dr en i n excess of t he pr esumpt i ve amount . . . and any


16/26

16

ot her f act or s whi ch, on a case by case basi s, demonst r at e t hat

t he i ncr eased amount i s appr opr i at e. )

25 Expenses associ at ed wi t h i nt er nat i onal t r avel andhousehol ds such as t hose of t hese par t i es usual l y ar e not

r el evant t o t he chi l d- suppor t needs of chi l dr en i n l ess af f l uent

househol ds. But i n deci di ng chi l d suppor t af t er t he di ssol ut i on

of mar r i ages such as t hi s one, i nvol vi ng si gni f i cant weal t h, t he

super i or cour t must consi der t he expense of al l owi ng chi l dr en

who have enj oyed such benef i t s t o cont i nue t o r ecei ve t hem af t er

t he di ssol ut i on.

26 As other st at e cour t s have concl uded, i n such asi t uat i on, t he cour t must l ook beyond t he basi c necessi t i es of

sur vi val because chi l dr en ar e ent i t l ed t o shar e r easonabl y i n

t hei r par ent s economi c good f or t une. See Miller v. Schou, 616

So. 2d 436, 438- 39 ( Fl a. 1993) ; accord Hansel v. Hansel, 802 So.

2d 875, 882- 83 ( La. App. 2001) ( cor r ect st andar d i s pr e- di vor ce

st andar d, not basi c needs) ; Isaacson v. Isaacson, 792 A. 2d

525, 537, 539 ( N. J . App. 2002) ( beyond bar e necessi t i es, a

weal t hy par ent must shar e wi t h t he chi l dr en t he benef i t of hi s

f i nanci al achi evement , i ncl udi ng r easonabl e but non- essent i al

i t ems such as t ut or i ng, summer camps, spor t s cl i ni cs, musi c or

ar t l essons, vacat i ons [ and] st udy abr oad) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) ;

Montgomery v. Montgomery, 481 N. W. 2d 234, 236 (N. D. 1992)

( needs of a chi l d i n a f ami l y wi t h subst ant i al i ncome ar e mor e


17/26

17

expansi ve because of t he st andar d of l i vi ng t he f ami l y has

enj oyed) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) ; Branch v. Jackson, 629 A. 2d 170,

171 ( Pa. 1993) ( r easonabl e needs of a chi l d whose parent or

parent s are weal t hy may wel l i ncl ude i t ems whi ch woul d be

consi der ed f r i vol ous t o par ent s who ar e l ess wel l of f ) ; Harris

v. Harris, 714 A. 2d 626, 633 ( Vt . 1998) ( needs of af f l uent

chi l dr en gr ow al ong wi t h t hei r par ent s good f or t une) .

27 I n decl i ni ng t o gr ant Mot her s r equest f or an upwar ddevi at i on, t he super i or cour t st at ed i t accept ed Fat her s

cont ent i on t hat over i ndul gi ng t he chi l dr en i s not i n t hei r best

i nt erest . We do not mean t o say t hat t he cour t must pr ovi de

chi l d suppor t t hat mat ches hi st or i cal spendi ng pat t er ns, dol l ar -

f or - dol l ar . See In re Patterson, 920 P. 2d 450, 455 ( Kan. App.

1996) ( no chi l d, no mat t er how weal t hy the parent s, needs t o be

pr ovi ded more t han t hr ee poni es) . Because t he t ouchst one

al ways i s t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l d, a chi l d s shar e i n

t he good f or t une of hi s or her par ent s must be subj ect t o t he

l i mi t at i on t hat t he awar d be consi st ent wi t h an appr opr i at e

l i f est yl e. Miller, 616 So. 2d at 439; see also Isaacson, 792

A. 2d at 539 ( suppor t i ng par ent has t he r i ght t o par t i ci pat e i n

t he devel opment of an appr opr i at e val ue syst em f or a chi l d by

l i mi t i ng expenses t o t hose t hat ar e r easonabl e) . Under

ci r cumst ances such as t hese, t he cour t may concl ude t hat t he

pr e- di ssol ut i on l i f est yl e of t he chi l dr en need not be pr eci sel y


18/26

18

r epl i cat ed, par t i cul ar l y when, as her e, one par ent per suasi vel y

argues i n f avor of more modest condi t i ons.

28 Fi nal l y, t he super i or cour t may not avoi d t hi sanal ysi s by si mpl y concl udi ng t hat t he par ent seeki ng t he upwar d

devi at i on has suf f i ci ent r esour ces by her sel f t o pr ovi de t he

chi l dr en t he l i f est yl e t hey enj oyed dur i ng t he mar r i age. The

i ssue i s not whether t he parent who seeks t he upward devi at i on

can af f or d t o pr ovi de t he chi l dr en wi t h t hei r pr e- di ssol ut i on

l i f estyl e wi t hout assi stance f r om t he ot her . Par t i cul ar l y t he

unusual ci r cumst ances present here, when Fat her s i ncome and

weal t h may si gni f i cant l y exceed Mot her s, t he cour t may not f ai l

t o per f or m t he anal ysi s t he Gui del i nes r equi r e. See Gui del i nes,

8. 9

B. The Order Prohibiting the Parents from Posting Disparaging

Remarks About Each Other on Social Media.

29 The par t i es j oi nt cust ody agreement , whi ch t he cour tappr oved, i ncl uded t he f ol l owi ng l anguage:

Al l communi cat i ons between the parent s shal lbe r espect f ul . The par ent s agr ee t hatnei t her par ent shal l di spar age t he ot herpar t y t o the chi l dr en, and t hat each par ent

9 Mother al so ar gues t he super i or cour t er r ed when i tconsi der ed what she recei ved i n the pr oper t y set t l ement i ndet er mi ni ng whet her t o gr ant an upwar d devi at i on i n chi l dsuppor t . See Walsh v. Walsh, 230 Ar i z. 486, 496, 32, 286 P. 3d1095, 1105 ( App. 2012) ; Gui del i nes, 5( G) . We r ej ect Mother sar gument because not hi ng i n t he Gui del i nes or i n Walsh pr ecl udest he cour t f r om consi der i ng t he i ncome a par ent wi l l r ecei ve f r oman asset awar ded i n t he di ssol ut i on when i t i s det er mi ni ng gr ossi ncome f or pur poses of a chi l d- suppor t award.


19/26

19

shal l model r espect f or t he ot her par ent i nt hei r i nt er act i ons wi t h t he chi l dr en.Nei t her par ent shal l do or say anythi ng t ot he chi l dr en t hat woul d negat i vel y i mpactt he chi l d s opi ni on or r espect f or t he ot her

par ent .

30 The day t he decr ee i ssued, Mot her used her Twi t t eraccount t o t weet a bi t i ng cri t i ci sm of Fat her s i nt egr i t y, t he

speci f i cs of whi ch ar e not r el evant her e. A f ew days l at er , at

Fat her s r equest , t he cour t - appr oved par ent i ng coor di nat or

i ssued t he f ol l owi ng r ecommendat i on:

Mother i s caut i oned agai nst communi cat i ngabout Fat her i n a negat i ve and pej or at i veway, especi al l y usi ng soci al medi a. Mostr ecent l y, i t has been br ought t o t he[ Par ent i ng Coor di nat or ] s at t ent i on t hatMother has t weet ed about Fat her i n anunf l at t er i ng way. Mot her i s ent i t l ed t o herown f eel i ngs about Fat her . However , usi ngsoci al medi a t o t el l t he wor l d how she vi ewsFat her i s i nsensi t i ve t o Fat her s rol e i nr el at i onshi p t o hi s chi l dr en. I f par ent s of

t he chi l dr en s f r i ends, f or exampl e, wer e t ovi ew Mot her s comment s, i t coul d negat i vel yi nf l uence t he par ent s and t hei r chi l dr enr egar di ng t he Nash chi l dr en. The [ Par ent i ngCoor di nat or ] s concer n i s t he col l at er alef f ect t o t he chi l dr en. Mot her must st opt hese act i vi t i es.

31 The super i or cour t i ssued t he f ol l owi ng or der adopt i ngt he parent i ng coor di nator s r ecommendat i ons:

Wi t h r espect t o t he al l egat i ons [ about t het weet ] , t he par t i es ar e r emi nded t hat t he[ j oi nt cust ody agr eement ] i s an Or der of t heCour t . Vi ol at i on of t he t er ms of t he [ j oi ntcust ody agr eement ] i s not sol el y a mat t err esol ved by t he Par ent i ng Coor di nat or , buti s enf or ceabl e by t he Cour t . The l i f e span


20/26

20

of soci al medi a i s i ndef i ni t e. Di str i but i onof soci al medi a post i ngs cannot beef f ect i vel y cont r ol l ed or cont ai ned.Di spar agi ng comment s made by ei t her par t yr egar di ng t he ot her par t y vi ol at es t he

[ j oi nt cust ody agr eement ] and i s l i kel y,over t i me, t o be vi ewed by t he mi norchi l dr en. The par t i es ar e r emi nded t hatsuch conduct i s pr ohi bi t ed.

Mot her ar gues t he or der vi ol at es her Fi r st Amendment r i ght t o

f r ee speech. We r evi ew al l eged const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons de

novo. State v. McGill, 213 Ar i z. 147, 159, 53, 140 P. 3d 930,

942 (2006) . 10

32 The or der prohi bi t s t he par t i es f r om post i ngdi spar agi ng comment s about each ot her i n soci al medi a. Pr i or

r est r ai nt s on speech ar e t he most ser i ous and l east t ol er abl e

i nf r i ngement on Fi r st Amendment r i ght s. Neb. Press Assn v.

Stuart, 427 U. S. 539, 559 ( 1976) . Al t hough not al l pr i or

r est r ai nt s are i nval i d, t hey come wi t h a heavy pr esumpt i on

agai nst const i t ut i onal val i di t y. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S.

697, 716 (1931) ; State v. Book-Cellar, Inc., 139 Ar i z. 525, 530,

679 P. 2d 548, 553 ( App. 1984) . The presumpt i on of i nval i di t y

can be over come i f t he r est r i ct i on . . . ser ves a compel l i ng

10 Father argues Mot her wai ved her r i ght t o compl ai n about t heor der because she f ai l ed t o obj ect t o i t wi t hi n 10 days asr equi r ed by Ar i zona Rul e of Fami l y Law Procedur e 74( J ) . Mot herf i l ed her obj ect i on 21 days af t er t he or der i ssued, but ar guesshe di d not r ecei ve t he order pr ompt l y because of del ays causedby t he cour t s det er mi nat i on t o seal al l or der s ent er ed i n t hecase. Under t he ci r cumst ances, we exer ci se our di scr et i on t oconsi der Mother s argument .


21/26

21

gover nment al i nt er est , i s necessary t o serve t he asser t ed

[ compel l i ng] i nt er est , i s pr eci sel y t ai l or ed t o ser ve t hat

i nt er est , and i s t he l east r est r i ct i ve means r eadi l y avai l abl e

f or t hat pur pose. Hobbs v. County of Westchester, 397 F. 3d

133, 149 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) ; see Sable Commcns

of Cal. v. Fed. Commcns Commn, 492 U. S. 115, 126 (1989)

( pr ot ect i on of chi l dr en s psychol ogi cal wel l - bei ng i s compel l i ng

i nt er est ; r egul at i on r est r ai ni ng i ndecent sexual expr essi on may

be uphel d i f nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve t hat i nt er est ) .

33 Or der s bar r i ng a par ent f r om di spar agi ng t he ot her i nf r ont of t he chi l dr en ar e common i n di ssol ut i on mat t er s. See,

e.g., In re Marriage of Hartmann, 111 Cal . Rpt r . 3d 242, 245

( Cal . App. 2010) ; In re Marriage of Olson, 850 P. 2d 527, 532

( Wash. App. 1993) . Never t hel ess, gener al concer n f or t he best

i nt er est s of t he chi l dr en wi l l not necessar i l y al l ow a cour t t o

br oadl y rest r ai n a parent f r om maki ng di spar agi ng comment s about

t he ot her t o t hi r d par t i es. See, e.g., In re K.D., 929 N. E. 2d

863, 871- 72 ( I nd. App. 2010) ( r ever si ng as over br oad an or der

bar r i ng mot her f r om t al ki ng t o any medi a sour ce or ot her s

about al l egat i ons i n cust ody case, ci t i ng l ack of evi dence t hat

chi l d woul d suf f er i f Mot her cont i nued t o t al k t o t he medi a) ;

In re T.T., 779 N. W. 2d 602, 621 ( Neb. App. 2009) ( vacat i ng or der

bar r i ng par ent s f r om di scl osi ng i nf or mat i on about t hei r chi l d

f or l ack of evi dence t o sat i sf y t he St at e s heavy bur den t o


22/26


23/26

23

par t i cul ar l y t r ue because Fat her has a hi ghl y vi si bl e pr of i l e as

a pr of essi onal at hl et e. Accor di ngl y, we cannot accept Mot her s

ar gument t hat t he or der i s i nval i d si mpl y because i t goes beyond

t he l et t er of t he par t i es agr eement t o r ef r ai n f r om maki ng

di spar agi ng r emar ks about t he ot her i n t he pr esence of t he

chi l dr en. To t he cont r ar y, t o t he extent t hat t he or der

pr ohi bi t s Mot her and Fat her f r om di spar agi ng t he ot her by way of

publ i c r emar ks t hat ar e l i kel y to make t hei r way t o t he

chi l dr en, t he or der i s t r ue t o t he spi r i t of t he par t i es

agr eement . See generally Adams v. Tersillo, 245 A. D. 2d 446,

447 ( N. Y. App. Di v. 1997) ( l i mi t i ng scope of r est r ai nt t o

comment s made i n t he pr esence of t he chi l dr en or i n t he

pr esence of t hose who have cont act wi t h t he chi l dr en) . 12

36 For t hese r easons, we concl ude the super i or cour t di dnot abuse i t s di scr et i on i n ent er i ng t he or der bar r i ng bot h

par t i es f r om di spar agi ng t he ot her by way of soci al medi a.

C. The Order Precluding Dissemination of Documents

and Information in the Court Record.

37 Mot her al so chal l enges t he cour t s sua sponte ordert hat [ d] ocument s, r ecor ds, and t r anscr i pt s seal ed by t he Cour t ,

12 Mother does not argue wi t h t he pr emi se of t he or der ,namel y, t hat post s on soci al medi a by def i ni t i on ar e publ i c sucht hat , i f she post s a di spar agi ng comment on soci al medi a, t hatcomment may make i t s way t o t he chi l dren. Nor on appeal doesshe ar gue t hat t he or der i s over br oad i n t hat i t pr ecl udes al ldi spar agi ng comment s.


24/26

24

and i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he seal ed mater i al , may not be

di ssemi nat ed t o any t hi r d par t y wi t hout an Or der of t he Cour t .

Not onl y does t he or der bar ei t her par t y f r om di scl osi ng copi es

of any cour t f i l i ng, i t al so pr event s them f r om di scussi ng t he

out come of t he pr oceedi ng or di scl osi ng any i nf or mat i on

cont ai ned i n document s, r ecor ds or t r anscr i pt s wi t hout pr i or

cour t appr oval . I t br oadl y appl i es t o al l such i nf or mat i on,

wi t hout r egar d t o i t s sour ce and wi t hout i dent i f yi ng any

si gni f i cant i nt er est sought t o be pr ot ect ed.

38 Because t he or der pr eempt i vel y f or bi ds speechconcer ni ng a publ i c pr oceedi ng, i t i s a cl assi c pr i or r est r ai nt

on speech. See, e.g., Alexander v. United States, 509 U. S. 544,

550 ( 1993) . Fat her does not argue t he or der i s r equi r ed t o

prot ect hi s i nt erest i n a f ai r t r i al . Cf. Neb. Press Assn, 427

U. S. at 570 ( or der pr ohi bi t i ng medi a account s of cr i mi nal

pr oceedi ng i nval i d on Fi r st Amendment grounds) . I nst ead, Fat her

ar gues t he or der i s a l ogi cal ext ensi on of st i pul at i ons t he

par t i es ent er ed pr i or t o t r i al aski ng t he super i or cour t t o seal

par t i cul ar f i l i ngs .

39 But t he or der at i ssue bar s di scl osur e of any mat t eri n t he cour t s r ecor d, not j ust document s t he par t i es agr eed

woul d be seal ed or kept conf i dent i al . Mor eover , Fat her does not

poi nt t o any st i pul at i on by whi ch t he par t i es agr eed not t o

di scl ose t he out come of t he di ssol ut i on pr oceedi ng or , mor e


25/26

25

br oadl y, any i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n any f i l i ng t hey made i n

t he pr oceedi ng. Nor does Fat her i dent i f y any speci f i c

i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he cour t s f i l e whose di scl osur e woul d

t hr eat en t he best i nt er est s of t he chi l dr en or any f act ual

f i ndi ng by the cour t t hat woul d j ust i f y t he or der .

40 Pur suant t o Ar i zona Rul e of Fami l y Law Procedur e13( D) , t he r ecor ds r el at i ng t o a di ssol ut i on pr oceedi ng shal l

be mai nt ai ned and di scl osed i n accor dance wi t h Rul e 123( c) ( 1)

of t he Rul es of t he Ar i zona Supr eme Cour t , whi ch i n t ur n

pr ovi des t hat cour t r ecor ds are pr esumed t o be open t o any

member of t he publ i c f or i nspect i on. 13 Whi l e Ar i zona Rul e of

Fami l y Law Procedur e 13( D) al l ows t he super i or cour t t o make

any recor d of a f ami l y cour t mat t er cl osed or conf i dent i al or

ot her wi se l i mi t access t o such r ecor ds, t he cour t may i ssue

such an or der onl y upon a f i ndi ng t hat t he conf i dent i al i t y or

pr i vacy i nt er est s of t he par t i es [ or ] t hei r mi nor chi l dr en . . .

out wei ghs t he publ i c i nt er est i n di scl osur e. Ar i z. R. Fam. L.

P. 13( D) .

41 To t he ext ent t he or der at i ssue bar s t he par t i es f r omdi scl osi ng t he decr ee or any ot her f i l i ngs made i n t he case, i t

f ai l s because i t i s unsuppor t ed by t he f i ndi ngs t hat Rul e 13( D)

or Rul e 123( c) ( 1) of t he Ar i zona Supr eme Cour t r equi r es.

13 Ar i zona Rul e of Fami l y Law Procedur e 43( G) al l ows f or t heconf i dent i al t r eat ment of document s cont ai ni ng sensi t i ve dat a, meani ng Soci al Secur i t y numbers and t he l i ke.


26/26

Mor eover , t o t he extent t he or der bar s t he par t i es f r om

di scl osi ng any i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n any cour t f i l i ng, i t

cannot wi t hst and scr ut i ny under appl i cabl e Fi r st Amendment

pr i nci pl es. We t her ef or e vacat e t he or der .

CONCLUSION

42 For t he reasons st ated above, we vacat e the decreei nsof ar as i t addr esses chi l d suppor t . We af f i r m t he or der t he

super i or cour t ent er ed r est r i ct i ng t he par t i es comment s about

t he ot her on soci al medi a, but vacat e i t s order bar r i ng t he

par t i es f r om di scl osi ng any i nf or mat i on or document i n t he

cour t s f i l e. We deny bot h par t i es r equest s f or at t or ney s

f ees i ncur r ed i n t hi s appeal pur suant t o A. R. S. 25- 324( A)

( West 2013) , but gr ant Mot her her cost s on appeal , pur suant t o

Ar i zona Rul e of Ci vi l Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 21.

_______________/ s/ _______________DI ANE M. J OHNSEN, Chi ef J udge

CONCURRI NG:

_______________/ s/ _________________SAMUEL A. THUMMA, Pr esi di ng J udge

_______________/ s/ _________________MI CHAEL J . BROWN, J udge