Hancock v. Martinez

── Hancock v. Martinez ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0061 FC Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 17, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: JOSHUA GREGORY HANCOCK, Petitioner/Appellant, v. PAISLEY MARTINEZ, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CA-CV 25-0061 FC FILED 03-17-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2018-092615 The Honorable Charlene D. Jackson, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED COUNSEL Adam C. Rieth, PLLC, Mesa By Adam C. Rieth Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Paisley Martinez Respondent/Appellee Pro Se  HANCOCK v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge David B. Gass and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. F O S T E R, Judge: ¶1 Joshua Hancock (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order denying a modification of the existing parenting time schedule, his request for attorneys’ fees and his motions for additional findings and to alter or amend. He also appeals the court’s calculation of child support. Paisley Martinez (“Mother”) did not file an answering brief. This Court affirms the denial of Father’s petition to modify parenting time and child support and his motion for additional findings but vacates and remands for further proceedings on his request for attorneys’ fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Mother share one minor child (“Child”) born in 2016. In September 2018, the parties entered and the superior court approved a judgment of paternity and an order for legal decision-making, parenting time and child support. The order provided parents with equal parenting time and joint legal decision-making authority. ¶3 In 2021, Father filed a petition to modify the legal decision- making, parenting time and child support order based on allegations that Child was molested. After briefing and an evidentiary hearing on Father’s motion, the court affirmed its prior orders with some minor modifications and ordered both parents to attend a class on high-conflict co-parenting. The court entered its order in July 2022. ¶4 A little over a year later, Father again filed a petition to modify legal decision-making authority, parenting time and child support. He alleged that Child missed school while in Mother’s care and that Mother admitted herself to a behavioral health facility. He also claimed that Mother could not communicate with him while she was in the behavioral health facility, had not taken Child to routine medical check-ups and failed to pick up Child from school as planned. Father also alleged that Mother’s home was up for auction. 2  HANCOCK v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court ¶5 Father stated that it was no longer practical for the two parties to communicate about Child’s health and well-being. He requested that Mother disclose medical records about her mental health and sought an order that her parenting time be supervised until she disclosed such records. Father also requested that even after disclosure of her medical records, Mother’s parenting be limited to “every other weekend from after school on Fridays until Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m.” Mother did not file a response but responded to Father’s allegations in a resolution statement. In that statement, she sought sole lega