GOVUVEIA v. GRULER

── GOVUVEIA v. GRULER ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In the Matter of Guardianship of: JOSEPH M. GRULER, An Adult. _____________________________________________ MARIANNE GOUVEIA, et al., Petitioners/Appellees v. ROBERT GRULER, SR., Respondent/Appellant No. 1 CA-CV 25-0402 PB FILED 04-15-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. PB2005-000584 The Honorable Sarah Selzer, Judge, Pro Tempore AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART COUNSEL Dyer Bregman & Ferris, PLLC, Phoenix By Scott R. Ferris, Scott C. Hodges Co-Counsel for Petitioners/Appellees Engelman Berger PC, Phoenix By Matthew Klopp Co-Counsel for Petitioners/Appellees Spencer Fane LLP, Phoenix By Alexandra LeClair, Norma C. Izzo Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  GOUVEIA, et al. v. GRULER Opinion of the Court OPINION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 The superior court entered an order approving visitation and contact terms between Robert Gruler, Sr., (“Father”) and his adult son, Joseph Gruler (“Joey”). Among other things, that order also retained Marianne Gouveia (“Mother”) and Robert Gouveia (“Brother”) (collectively, “the Co-guardians”) as co-guardians. Father appeals from that order. For the following reasons, we vacate the visitation and contact provisions, remand for reconsideration on those provisions and the guardianship determination, and otherwise affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Mother and Father are the parents of Joey and Brother. Joey is under an adult guardianship. The parties’ relationship is highly contentious. In March 2021, the parties agreed Mother and Brother would serve as Joey’s co-guardians and agreed to a visitation schedule between Joey and Father. In October 2022, the Co-guardians petitioned to decrease Father’s visitation with Joey. In September 2023, Father counter-petitioned, asking to serve as Joey’s sole guardian and receive increased “parenting time” with Joey. I. The Settlement Agreement ¶3 In November 2023, the parties and Joey’s court-appointed attorney reached a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) purporting to resolve all pending issues. ¶4 The parties agreed to participate in a comprehensive family evaluation conducted by a neutral, mutually approved evaluator (“the Evaluator”). Among other things, the Settlement Agreement required the Evaluator to recommend a visitation schedule between Joey and Father, which the parties agreed to be bound by. The Settlement Agreement did not require the Evaluator to recommend who should be Joey’s guardian. The parties agreed their attorneys would “prepare a Stipulated Order for the Court to enter that incorporates” the Evaluator’s recommendations 2  GOUVEIA, et al. v. GRULER Opinion of the Court “without change.” Then, after considering those recommendations, the court would determine who should be Joey’s guardian, with Mother and Father agreeing they would not serve as co-guardians. ¶5 The court approved the Settlement Agreement in a signed order and administratively closed the case. The parties jointly moved for reconsideration, in part because the Settlement Agreement was contingent on the court entering future orders on visitation and guardianship. The court issued an updated order approving the settlement (the “Approval Order”). II.