White v. Newby

── White v. Newby ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 22, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: NICHOLAS PETER WHITE, Petitioner/Appellee, v. TABATHA FAITH NEWBY, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0540 FC FILED 04-22-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2020-093775 The Honorable Charlene D. Jackson, Judge AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART COUNSEL Kirk Smith, Chandler Counsel for Respondent/Appellant Genesis Legal Group, Gilbert By Deborah M. Levine Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee  WHITE v. NEWBY 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 In this post-decree family court matter, Tabatha Newby (Mother) appeals the denial of her petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time and child support, and also seeks to challenge an award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Nicholas White (Father). Because Mother has shown no error in the denial of her petition, that ruling is affirmed. Because this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over the subsequent award of fees and costs, that portion of the appeal is dismissed. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Father married in 2007 and have two children in common; one is a minor and the other recently turned 18. In 2020, Father filed for divorce, and a May 2021 decree of dissolution granted joint legal decision-making and shared parenting time with a one week on, one week off schedule. The decree required Father to pay $306 in monthly child support. ¶3 In February 2023, Mother petitioned to modify legal decision- making, parenting time and child support. As changed circumstances, Mother alleged Father made disparaging remarks about her to the children, poor communication between her and Father and an inability to agree on whether the children should see a therapist. Mother sought sole legal decision-making or, alternatively, “final say” decision-making; a reduction in Father’s parenting time and modification of the parenting schedule and child support. ¶4 At Mother’s request, the children were interviewed by a court conciliator in July 2023. After several continuances, at an April 2025 trial, Mother and Father testified and the court received exhibits. In May 2025, the court issued its ruling, finding there had not been a material change of circumstances that would justify modifying legal decision-making or parenting time. Among other things, the court found several issues had resolved after the filing of the petition but before trial, and that Mother’s 2  WHITE v. NEWBY Decision of the Court requested parenting time plan (which increased the frequency of transitions) was not in the best interests of the children. Given the parties’ change in income, the court did eliminate the child support obligation. The court awarded Father a portion of his attorneys’ fees and costs. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (A.R.S.) § 25-324(A) (2026).1 The court certified this May 2025 ruling as a partial final judgment, see Ariz. R. Fam. L.P. 78(b), and Mother filed a timely appeal of that partial final judgment. ¶5 In August 2025, after further briefing, the court awarded