Mormillo v. Pearson

── Mormillo v. Pearson ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 15, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 WYATT ANTHONY MORMILLO, Petitioner/Appellee, v. ANGELICA ROSE PEARSON, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0808 FC FILED 04-15-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2024-093677, FC2024-093877 The Honorable Harla M. Davison, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED COUNSEL Angelica Rose Pearson, Gilbert Respondent/Appellant Wyatt Anthony Mormillo, Mesa Petitioner/Appellee  MORMILLO v. PEARSON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. T H U M M A, Judge: ¶1 Angelica Rose Pearson (Mother) challenges an order for paternity, legal decision-making, parenting time and child support. Mother argues that Wyatt Anthony Mormillo (Father) should not be allowed to leave their minor child with his mother while exercising his parenting time, the court ignored Father’s alleged physical abuse and Father’s mother lied under oath. Because Mother has shown no error, the order is affirmed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Father have one minor child together, born in September 2023. In September 2024, Father filed a petition to establish paternity, legal decision-making, parenting time and child support. In October 2024, Mother filed her own petition to establish legal decision- making, parenting time and child support as well as a parenting plan for sole legal decision-making. The competing petitions were consolidated. ¶3 After a December 2024 temporary orders hearing, the court found Father was the child’s father, ordered joint legal decision-making, adopted a plan for parenting time, ordered Father to pay Mother $115 per month in child support, denied competing requests for an interim award of attorneys’ fees, and ordered each party to complete an affidavit of financial information. ¶4 At a July 2025 trial, the court heard testimony from Mother, Father and Father’s mother and took the matter under advisement. In an August 2025 ruling, the court found that both parties committed an act of domestic violence against the other, and that Mother abused alcohol, but Father did not. The court awarded the parties joint legal decision-making, equal parenting time on a two-week schedule and ordered no child support payments. Finding Mother had considerably more financial resources and acted unreasonably in the litigation, the court awarded Father $6,302.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 2  MORMILLO v. PEARSON Decision of the Court ¶5 This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s timely notice of appeal from the August 2025 ruling under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12- 120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1) (2026).1 DISCUSSION ¶6 Mother’s opening brief fails to comply with ARCAP 13, which typically constitutes waiver. See, e.g., Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 523 ¶¶ 10-11 (App. 2022). Mother also failed to provide any transcripts of the superior court hearings. This court will presume a missing transcript supports the superior court’s rulings. See Myrick v. Maloney, 2