Eckert v. Eckert

── Eckert v. Eckert ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0366 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: KIERA N. ECKERT, Petitioner/Appellant, v. CHARLES W. ECKERT, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0366 FC FILED 04-06-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022-092556 The Honorable Steven McCarthy, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Adam C. Rieth P.L.L.C, Mesa By Adam C. Rieth Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Barreda Law PLLC, Gilbert By Joshua A. Barreda, Erin Walters Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  ECKERT v. ECKERT Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. B E C K E, Judge: ¶1 Kiera N. Eckert (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order denying her post-decree petition to modify legal decision-making authority and parenting time and her request for attorneys’ fees. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Mother and Charles W. Eckert (“Father”) were married in 2010 and have one child together, born in 2013. Mother petitioned for dissolution in 2022, and the parties resolved all issues in a July 2023 consent decree. The parties share joint legal decision-making authority and a 5-2-2- 5 parenting time schedule. Mother remarried in March 2024, and her husband lives in Idaho. Mother splits her time between Arizona and Idaho, exercising parenting time in Arizona. ¶3 In late February 2024, Mother’s attorney emailed a letter to Father’s attorney stating that Mother wanted to relocate to Idaho with the child on June 1, 2024. This letter set forth a proposed long distance parenting plan. Father’s attorney emailed a response the same day opposing any relocation, stating that Father was unaware of Mother’s plan to move on June 1, 2024, and noting that Mother had not provided the notice required by A.R.S. § 25-408. ¶4 On July 31, 2024, the parties attended a mediation on an unrelated dispute. During the mediation, Mother again said she wanted to relocate to Idaho. ¶5 Two weeks before the mediation, on July 13, 2024, Mother mailed a certified letter notifying Father of her intent to relocate as required by A.R.S. § 25-408. Father did not receive the certified letter or a notice to pick up the letter. The post office returned the unclaimed letter to Mother. 2  ECKERT v. ECKERT Decision of the Court ¶6 In September 2024, Mother petitioned to modify legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support. Mother stated that, because Father failed to accept the certified letter or petition to prevent relocation, she intended to relocate and proposed a long-distance parenting plan. Mother also requested final authority on education issues “[t]o facilitate the relocation[.]” ¶7 Less than two weeks later, Father petitioned to prevent relocation. He alleged Mother failed to provide the notice required by A.R.S. § 25-408. He argued that relocation to Idaho was not in the child’s best interests. Father also responded to Mother’s modification petition and filed a counter-petition to modify the parenting plan based on the child residing in Arizona with Father