Curran v. Curran

── Curran v. Curran ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 21, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 JOSEPH CURRAN, Petitioner/Appellant, v. BRITTANY LEE CURRAN, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0615 FC FILED 04-21-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2017-093751 The Honorable Andrew J. Russell, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joshua Joseph Curran, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellant Sloma Law Group, PLLC, Phoenix By Sue A. Jones and Melinda M. Sloma Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  CURRAN v. CURRAN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Joseph Curran (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order denying modification of parenting time, granting Brittany Curran (“Mother”) final say for medical decisions, modifying Father’s child support payments, and awarding Mother a portion of her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Mother and Father Divorce Via Consent Decree in 2018. ¶2 Mother and Father share two children. They divorced in 2018 and entered into a consent decree through which they agreed to exercise joint legal decision-making and approximately equal parenting time. Mother and Father went approximately six years without seeking modification of their consent decree. B. In 2024, Mother Petitions to Modify Legal Decision-Making Authority, Parenting Time, and Child Support, and Later Petitions for Contempt Sanctions Against Father. ¶3 In 2024, Mother petitioned to modify legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support. Mother sought sole or final legal decision-making authority, citing repeated difficulties working with Father to obtain medical treatment for the children, even when recommended by their pediatrician and required by their school. Mother limited her request to modify parenting time to trying to find a schedule that worked better with Father’s irregular work schedule. Father did not oppose the request to modify parenting time. ¶4 Mother later petitioned the court to find Father in contempt based on his failure to pay his portion of uninsured medical expenses and agreed-upon extracurricular expenses related to the children. 2  CURRAN v. CURRAN Decision of the Court C. The Court Grants Father’s Counsel’s Request to Withdraw and Denies Father’s Motion to Continue the Evidentiary Hearing. ¶5 A final orders hearing was originally scheduled to take place on February 7, 2025. In lieu of a final orders hearing, however, Mother and Father engaged in unsuccessful settlement negotiations at the courthouse. On February 10, 2025, the court rescheduled the final orders hearing for April 17, 2025. On April 3, 2025, Father moved to continue the April 17, 2025 hearing. That same day, Father’s counsel also moved to withdraw with Father’s consent, citing Ethical Rule 1.16(a)(3) — “the lawyer is discharged” — and Mother objected to Father’s motion to continue. Notably, although counsel moved to withdraw on April 3, 2025, Father’