Schritter v. Schritter

── Schritter v. Schritter ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 24, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: TANNER JAY SCHRITTER, Petitioner/Appellee, v. LORINDA LYNN SCHRITTER, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0546 FC FILED 04-24-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County No. S8015DO201700175 The Honorable Megan A. McCoy, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Berkshire Law Office PLLC, Tempe By Alexandra Sandlin, Keith Berkshire Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee David Dick & Associates, Chandler By David Alan Dick Counsel for Respondent/Appellant  SCHRITTER v. SCHRITTER Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined. B E C K E, Judge: ¶1 Lorinda Lynn Schritter (“Mother”) appeals from a post- decree order modifying parenting time, affirming child support, and allocating fees from a psychological evaluation. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Tanner Jay Schritter (“Father”) divorced in 2018 and have one child, born in 2015. Father lives in Kingman and Mother lives in Gilbert. The original dissolution decree awarded the parties joint legal- decision making authority with Father having tie-breaking authority if the parties could not agree, week on/week off parenting time, and ordered Father to pay $91 in monthly child support. ¶3 By 2024, after resolving various petitions and cross-petitions seeking to modify the original decree (and accounting for related appeals), Father had sole legal decision-making authority, the child lived with Father during the school year and Mother during the summer break, with the non- custodial parent receiving parenting time every other weekend. Mother was also required to pay nearly $500 in monthly child support. See Schritter v. Schritter, 1 CA-CV 20-0399 FC, 2021 WL 3089042 (Ariz. App. July 22, 2021); Schritter v. Schritter, 1 CA-CV 23-0550 FC, 2024 WL 4356500, at *6, ¶ 40 (Ariz. App. Oct. 1, 2024). ¶4 In March 2024, Father petitioned to modify parenting time and asked that Dr. Ronn Lavit be appointed to perform a parenting evaluation. Father volunteered to pay the entire cost of retaining Dr. Lavit subject to possible reallocation. ¶5 Mother denied the allegations and argued Father had failed to show a change of circumstances that materially affected the child, and thus, his petition should be summarily denied. Mother also challenged the request to have Dr. Lavit appointed. After hearing oral argument, the superior court appointed Dr. Lavit and ordered Father to pay the costs of 2  SCHRITTER v. SCHRITTER Decision of the Court the evaluation, subject to potential reallocation. The court also appointed Samuel Vederman as the best interests attorney (“BIA”) for the child. ¶6 Both before and at the hearing on Father’s petition, the parties disputed their financial circumstances, including Mother alleging she had recently lost her job. ¶7 Mother, Father, and the child’s clinical therapist testified at the April 2025 hearing. The court received numerous exhibits, including the BIA’s position statement and Dr. Lavit’s report, as well as exhibits and testimony from prior hearings.