Mohamed v. Yusuf

── Mohamed v. Yusuf ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0591 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 01, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: MOHAMED MOHAMED, Petitioner/Appellee, v. SAGAL YUSUF, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0591 FC FILED 04-01-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2024-051181 The Honorable Andrew J. Russell, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Mohamed Mohamed, Scottsdale, AZ Petitioner/Appellee Sagal Yusuf, Golden Valley, MN Respondent/Appellant  MOHAMED v. YUSUF Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. P A T O N, Judge: ¶1 Sagal Yusuf (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s legal decision-making and parenting time portions of its dissolution decree. Because the court did not analyze the Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section 25-408(I) factors, we vacate and remand the court’s legal decision- making and parenting time orders for further proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mohamed Mohamed (“Father”) and Mother married in 2023, and have one child, born in April 2024. About a month after the child’s birth, Mother took her to live with family in Minnesota without informing Father. Shortly thereafter, Father petitioned for dissolution of marriage from Mother and requested temporary orders for legal decision-making and parenting time without notice. The superior court denied his motion on an emergency, ex parte basis but noted it would resolve the motion in the usual course. ¶3 After a hearing in August 2024, the court entered temporary orders awarding the parties joint legal-decision making authority, with Mother having final say after good faith efforts. It also ordered a long- distance parenting plan, with Mother serving as the primary residential parent and giving Father parenting time in Minnesota on specific weekends. The court further ordered that neither party shall relocate the child outside of Arizona or at a distance greater than 100 miles from the child’s current residence in Minnesota without complying with Section 25- 408. ¶4 The court scheduled the dissolution trial for June 2025, and the parties filed their joint pretrial statement. The parties noted that relocation of the child, among other things, was a contested issue, and separately argued why the Section 25-403(A) and Section 25-408(I) factors supported their respective positions on whether it was in the child’s best 2  MOHAMED v. YUSUF Decision of the Court interests to relocate. Specifically, Father contended that Arizona is the child’s home state, and Mother could not meet her burden to establish that relocation was in the child’s best interests under Section 25-408(I). Mother asked the court to affirm the temporary orders and approve the child’s permanent relocation to Minnesota because the Section 25-408(I) factors supported relocation. ¶5 In June 2025, the superior court entered its dissolution decree, which analyzed the child’s best interests under the Section 25-403(A) factors only. As relevant here, the decree awarded the parties joint legal decision- making authority, with Mother having final say after a good faith effor