Stewart v. Floyd

── Stewart v. Floyd ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 13, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: SYMONE PERRRIS STEWART, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DENISE FLOYD, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0788 FC FILED 04-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2025-002938 The Honorable Nichole Galusha, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Denise Floyd, Avondale Defendant/Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.  STEWART v. FLOYD Decision of the Court K I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Denise Floyd appeals an order of protection prohibiting her from having contact with her grandson. Because she has failed to establish error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 One day in mid-July 2025, Symone Stewart’s two-year-old son, A.F., suffered an injury to his arm while he was in the care of his grandmother, Floyd. Stewart’s stepdaughter, who was present at the time, later told Stewart that Floyd “yanked [A.F.’s] arm” and then, after he fell or threw himself on the floor, “pull[ed] him” up “from the ground by the same arm.” ¶3 A.F.’s father took him to the emergency room. Stewart met them there. As she later recalled, the attending doctor told her that A.F.’s arm “was dislocated at the elbow,” and that the injury was caused by being “pulled or yanked with a certain amount of force.” When Stewart confronted her, Floyd denied pulling A.F.’s arm, stating that he “threw himself to the floor” during a tantrum and “land[ed] on his arm[,] . . . hurting it.” ¶4 Stewart petitioned for an order of protection (“OOP”), alleging that Floyd had injured A.F. by forcefully pulling his arm and asking that Floyd be ordered to “stay away” from herself and A.F. The court granted the OOP ex parte. ¶5 Floyd requested an evidentiary hearing to contest the OOP. At the hearing, Stewart, Floyd, and A.F’s father all testified and documentary evidence, including A.F.’s emergency room discharge papers, was presented. The discharge papers show that A.F. was diagnosed with radial head subluxation or “nursemaid’s elbow.” The papers reflect that this injury occurs when “a bone of the elbow” is “pulled out of place and gets stuck in that position,” and that this type of injury “often happens when you lift or pull the child by one or both arms.” ¶6 At the end of the hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Floyd “may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the last year,” and so ordered that the OOP would remain in effect. 2  STEWART v. FLOYD Decision of the Court ¶7 Floyd timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6 Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(5)(b), and Ariz. R. Protective Order P., Rule 42(a)(2). DISCUSSION ¶8 Floyd argues that the superior court erred both by issuing the OOP and then continuing it in effect. We review the superior court’s ruling on an order of protection for an abuse of discretion. Michaelson v. Garr, 234 Ariz. 542, 544, ¶ 5 (App. 2014). A court abuses its discre