Treptow v. Vitellaro-Martorell

── Treptow v. Vitellaro-Martorell ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 07, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: JAKE TREPTOW, Petitioner/Appellee, v. TABITHA VITELLARO-MARTORELL, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0421 FC FILED 05-07-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022-091567 The Honorable Charlene D. Jackson, Judge SPECIAL ACTION JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART COUNSEL The Shaw Law Group PLLC, Gilbert By Bryan C. Shaw Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Tabitha Vitellaro-Martorell, Tempe Respondent/Appellant Pro-Se  TREPTOW v. VITELLARO-MARTORELL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Chief Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Veronika Fabian joined. H O W E, Judge: ¶1 Tabitha Vitellaro-Martorell (“Mother”) appeals the family court’s contempt findings and award of attorney’s fees to Jake Treptow (“Father”). For the reasons below, we affirm in part and remand in part for proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDRUAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Mother share two minor children, born November 2021 and August 2023. The parents were not married and have a long history of conflict. The parties agreed to mediate in 2022 and the family court entered their agreed upon final orders for joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time for their first child. The parties also agreed they would have telephone access to their first child during their normal waking hours when with the other parent. ¶3 After their second child was born, both parties moved to amend the parenting time and child support orders. The family court held an evidentiary hearing and, in September 2024, continued joint legal decision-making over the children, adjusted their equal parenting schedule, and ordered Father to pay child support. ¶4 The family court also ordered the parties to communicate through Our Family Wizard and set out behavioral and length guidelines for their messages. The guidelines required messages to be respectful, avoid name calling, criticizing, and put-downs. The parties were limited to two initiated messages and two responses per day. Last, the court required the receiving party to respond in a timely manner, generally on the same day or within eight hours. The court did not address telephone contact with the children. ¶5 The family court further found that “Mother without good cause willfully denied Father 28 days of parenting time.” The court awarded Father 12 days of makeup parenting time “at a rate of one 24-hour 2  TREPTOW v. VITELLARO-MARTORELL Decision of the Court period per month during her scheduled three days of parenting time weekends for twelve months.” ¶6 Mother moved to reconsider the physical custody schedule so she could obtain consistent childcare. The family court agreed, adjusting her parenting time schedule. The new schedule provided that Mother would have the children from Tuesday afternoon to Thursday morning and Saturday morning to Monday morning. The court did not alter the make- up parenting schedule. ¶7 Mother and Father’s antagonism continued. Both parents excluded the other from the children’s medical decisions. Mother sent messages that exceeded the gu