rivera/carrillo v. Webb

── rivera/carrillo v. Webb ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 11, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: VALARIE RIVERA and JESSE CARRILLO, Petitioners/Appellees, v. DIAMOND ENRIQUEZ WEBB, Respondent/Appellant.1 No. 1 CA-CV 25-0556 FC FILED 05-11-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2022-051024 The Honorable Julie Ann Mata, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Defenders of Children, Phoenix By Donna Berlinski Counsel for Respondent/Appellant Pangerl Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Phoenix By Regina M. Pangerl Counsel for Petitioners/Appellees 1 The caption has been amended to reflect the correct parties and shall be used for future filings in this appeal.  RIVERA/CARRILLO v. WEBB Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the Court’s decision, in which Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined. W I L L I A M S, Judge: ¶1 Diamond Enriquez Webb (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order granting Valarie Rivera (“Rivera”) and Jesse Carrillo (“Carrillo”) (collectively, “the Petitioners”) third-party visitation with two of Mother’s minor children. Because the record sufficiently supports the visitation award, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Randy Carrillo (“Father”) never married but have two children together—a daughter (“Daughter”), born in 2012, and a son (“Son”), born in 2014 (collectively, “the Children”). For substantial periods between October 2014 and November 2021, the Petitioners—Father’s aunt and uncle—served as the Children’s primary caregivers, largely due to Mother’s incarceration and medical issues and Father’s minimal contact. In 2018 and 2019, Mother signed temporary guardianship agreements granting the Petitioners legal decision-making authority for the Children. But in November 2021, Mother severed all contact between the Petitioners and the Children. ¶3 In April 2022, the Petitioners petitioned to establish third- party rights for legal decision-making, visitation, and child support. In response, Mother acknowledged the Petitioners’ prior service as the Children’s caregivers, but explained she “no longer wish[ed] to continue contact” with them because of certain, enumerated “concerns” with their behavior: failing to maintain up-to-date contact information, failing to timely return phone calls, failing to ensure proper hygiene/dress for the Children, preventing the Children from praying, encouraging the Children to refer to them as “Mom” and “Dad,” offering Mother money to see the Children, and reaching out to family members for “dirt” on Mother. In June 2022, Mother contacted police to report that Carrillo had showered with Son and washed his genitals. She later submitted a pretrial statement notifying the superior court that police were actively investigating Carrillo’s conduct with the Children. 2  RIVERA/CARRILLO v. WEBB Decision of the Court ¶4 Pending trial, the Petitioners repeatedly moved for temporary orders. The superior court denied their first three requests but assigned a court appointed advisor (“the CAA”) to investigate the matter and make a recommendation to the court. ¶5 After interviewing Rivera, Carrillo, Mother, Father, Daughter, and Son, the CAA submitted a report s