MacNeil v. Carter

── MacNeil v. Carter ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0422 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 25, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: JOSEPH MACNEIL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. CHRISTIE HAZEL CARTER, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0422 FC FILED 03-25-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC 2022-093409 The Honorable Keith A. Miller, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART COUNSEL Guymon Law, Chandler By Joanna Amaris Medrano Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Adam C. Rieth, P.L.L.C., Mesa By Adam C. Rieth Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  MACNEIL v. CARTER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge D. Steven Williams joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Joseph MacNeil (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s dissolution decree and its order on his motion to alter or amend. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Christie Carter (“Mother”) married in 2019. In 2022, Father petitioned for legal separation and the matter was later converted to a dissolution proceeding. Soon after, Father moved for temporary orders regarding legal decision-making and parenting time. The superior court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making after finding Father committed “a serious act of domestic violence against Mother . . . and ha[d] not yet rebutted the presumption in [Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”)] [§] 25-403.03.” The court required Father’s parenting time be supervised and ordered that he complete “a domestic violence perpetrators class, regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous, and regularly attend an anger management class.” The court later modified its temporary order to permit Father and Mother to exercise equal parenting time. ¶3 In July 2024, the superior court held a dissolution trial and later issued a dissolution decree, awarding Mother sole legal decision- making and ordering the parties to exercise equal parenting time. It also ordered Father to pay child support; allocated the parties’ community and separate real property, personal property, and debts; ordered Father to make a $75,000 property equalization payment to Mother; and awarded Mother a portion of her attorneys’ fees. Father timely moved to alter or amend the decree, and the court modified only the parties’ winter-break parenting time. ¶4 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(1) and (2). 2  MACNEIL v. CARTER Decision of the Court DISCUSSION I. Legal Decision-Making ¶5 Father challenges the superior court’s award of sole legal decision-making to Mother. ¶6 We review the superior court’s legal decision-making order for an abuse of discretion. DeLuna v. Pettito, 247 Ariz. 420, 423, ¶ 9 (App. 2019). The court abuses its discretion “when the record is devoid of competent evidence to support the decision, or when the court commits an error of law in the process of reaching a discretionary conclusion.” Engstrom v. McCarthy, 243 Ariz. 469, 471, ¶ 4 (App. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We review a cou