Figueroa v. Figueroa

── Figueroa v. Figueroa ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: April 27, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: ALYSSA M. FIGUEROA, Petitioner/Appellee, v. DANIEL FIGUEROA, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0723 FC FILED 04-27-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022-094627 The Honorable Michael Valenzuela, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Daniel Figueroa, Avondale Respondent/Appellant  FIGUEROA v. FIGUEROA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. F U R U Y A, Judge: ¶1 Respondent/Appellant Daniel Figueroa (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s decree of dissolution, challenging the court’s parenting time and child support determinations. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Petitioner/Appellee Alyssa M. Figueroa (“Mother”) married in 2017 and have a child, A.F. (“the Child”), in common. ¶3 Mother petitioned for dissolution in 2022. During the almost three years the petition was pending, the parties each sought temporary orders concerning legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support. Eventually, they engaged in a court-ordered settlement conference where they resolved all issues except legal decision-making authority, parenting time, and child support. ¶4 In 2025, the superior court conducted a trial on those remaining issues. At the time of trial, it was Mother’s position that she should have sole legal decision-making authority for the Child and be designated the primary residential parent, with Father to have parenting time every other weekend and pay monthly child support of $635. Father did not file a separate pretrial statement setting forth his position on these issues. At the trial, both parties testified and Mother presented documentary evidence. ¶5 In the dissolution decree, the superior court awarded Mother sole legal decision-making authority, designated her the primary residential parent, granted Father parenting time three weekends per month, and ordered Father to pay Mother $512 monthly in child support. ¶6 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(A)(1). 2  FIGUEROA v. FIGUEROA Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶7 Father challenges the superior court’s parenting time and child support orders. ¶8 Mother has not filed an answering brief. We may treat that failure as a confession of reversible error as to any debatable issues. Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259 ¶ 9 (App. 2014). But if it is clear the superior court did not err, we may still affirm regardless of the confession of error. See Honsey v. Honsey, 126 Ariz. 336, 337 (App. 1980). And where the best interests of a child are implicated, we ordinarily will not apply waiver rules because the child’s best interests are paramount. See Hays v. Gama, 205 Ariz. 99, 102 ¶ 18 (2003); In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525 ¶ 2 (App. 2002). Because Father’s appeal impacts the Child’s best interests, we reach the merits of this appeal despite Mother’s failure to file an