Escobedo v. Miller

── Escobedo v. Miller ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0530 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: GIOVANNY ESCOBEDO, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MARKIE MILLER, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0530 FC FILED 04-06-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2015-092922 The Honorable David E. McDowell, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Giovanny Escobedo, Mesa Petitioner/Appellant Al Arpad Esquire, Phoenix By Alexander R. Arpad Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  ESCOBEDO v. MILLER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig joined. F A B I A N, Judge: ¶1 Giovanny Escobedo (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s denial of his motions to set aside child support arrearages owed to Markie Miller (“Mother”) contained in the court’s amended child support order. Father argues the court denied him due process by entering the arrears judgment without an evidentiary hearing. This Court vacates and remands. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 In 2015, Father petitioned to establish legal decision-making and parenting time for the parties’ minor child. The parties agreed, in a temporary agreement adopted by the superior court, that Father “continue to directly pay to Mother the monthly sum of $300.00 as and for child support.” The parties later agreed that after February 1, 2016, the child support obligation would decrease to $100 per month because they had shifted to an equal parenting time schedule. The court adopted this agreement as well. After mediation in 2019, the parties agreed to modify parenting time, but Father’s child support obligation remained at $100 per month. ¶3 In December 2023, Mother filed a motion for temporary orders and a petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support, alleging Father committed an act of domestic violence against Father’s then partner. Mother sought sole legal decision-making, limited supervised parenting time for Father, and child support under the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. Mother did not seek child support arrearages in the petition or any time thereafter. ¶4 That same month, the superior court issued temporary orders awarding Mother temporary legal decision-making, limiting Father’s parenting time to four hours per week, and ordering Father pay Mother 2  ESCOBEDO v. MILLER Decision of the Court $731 per month in child support pursuant to the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. ¶5 At an evidentiary hearing in May 2024, Mother testified that she was no longer splitting childcare costs with Father. Father testified that he was underpaying the support amount ordered in the court’s temporary orders by approximately $30 per month. ¶6 The superior court ruled on Mother’s petition on May 20, 2024. The court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making, implemented a parenting time schedule that gradually increased Father’s parenting time over a period of several months, and ordered Father pay Mother $559 per month in child support. The court also stated: [T]he Court believes there may be a child support arrearage owed by [Father] to [Moth