Hampton v. Lofton

── Hampton v. Lofton ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0650 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 31, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: COURTNEY HAMPTON, Petitioner/Appellee, v. TYRONE LOFTON, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0650 FC FILED 03-31-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2011-095119 The Honorable Michael Valenzuela, Judge AFFIRMED APPEARANCES Tyrone Lofton, Mesa Respondent/Appellant Courtney Hampton, Gilbert Petitioner/Appellee  HAMPTON v. LOFTON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. W I L L I A M S, Judge: ¶1 Tyrone Lofton (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s denial of his petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Father and Courtney Hampton (“Mother”) have one child (“Child”) together, born in 2010. In 2013, the parties divorced by consent decree wherein they agreed to share joint legal decision-making authority for Child, designated Mother as the primary residential parent, and awarded Father regular parenting time. Unfortunately, in the years that followed, the parties’ relationship with each other, and with Child, has been strained and tumultuous. ¶3 In 2021, Mother petitioned the superior court to modify legal decision-making, asking the court to keep joint legal decision-making in place but to allow Mother “final say” where the parties could not agree. In 2022, following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted Mother’s request ordering that “if [the parents] cannot agree after making a good faith effort to reach an agreement, Mother shall have the ability to make the final decision.” Father did not appeal the court’s order. ¶4 In 2024, police transported Child to a mental-health intervention center after Child assaulted Father. Within days, both parents separately petitioned the superior court to modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. The court held an evidentiary hearing on both petitions in May 2025. Mother and Father testified at the hearing. Father also called an expert witness to testify. When asked, “[w]hat is your profession?”, the witness stated, “I have a background in experimental psychology from Johns Hopkins.” Among other things, Father’s witness stated he never met with Mother or Child; that Father was “a very fit and qualified father” who should have custody of Child; and that Child would benefit from having no contact with Mother for a period of time. 2  HAMPTON v. LOFTON Decision of the Court ¶5 The superior court found that since the court issued its 2022 legal decision-making order, Mother “has undermined Father’s relationship with the child,” and Father and Child “have also been involved in at least two altercations.” The court further found that both parents were “at fault” for their inability to co-parent or cooperate, and that Father’s expert witness’s “testimony was not credible” because the witness did not meet with Mother or Child, relied entirely on information Father provided, and used unclear methodology and data to reach his conclusion and recommendation. So the court