BAILEY v. BAILEY

── BAILEY v. BAILEY ── 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 the Matter of the Guardianship of: AMANDA C. BAILEY, An Adult. ______________________________ THEODORE BAILEY, Petitioner/Appellee, and REBECCA BAILEY, et al., Respondents/Appellees. v. NANCY BAILEY, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0512 PB FILED 05-11-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. PB2016-090709 The Honorable Janette Corral, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Baumann, Doyle, Paytas & Bernstein, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ By Michael J. Doyle Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Amanda B. Duenas Eden Cravatta, PLC, Phoenix, AZ By Amy Olthouse Duenas Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Theodore Bailey Rebecca Bailey, Tecumseh, MI Respondent/Appellee Robin J. Bailey-Webb, Gladstone, MI Respondent/Appellee Raechel Bailey Kolb, Grand Junction, CO Respondent/Appellee Nancy Bailey, Goetzville, MI Respondent/Appellant MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined. P E R K I N S, Judge: ¶1 Nancy Bailey appeals a court order setting visitation terms with her sister, Amanda Bailey, an adult ward. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 This appeal arises out of a family dispute between five siblings (Ted Bailey, Nancy Bailey, Raechel Bailey Kolb, Rebecca Bailey, and Robin Bailey-Webb) over visitation between Nancy and Amanda, an adult woman with Down Syndrome and the youngest sibling of the Bailey clan. Amanda lives in Arizona with Ted, who is her guardian. Nancy lives in Michigan. ¶3 In February 2024, Nancy petitioned in Arizona for visitation with Amanda. She requested Amanda spend summers in Michigan with her and be allowed to call Nancy whenever Amanda wants. Ted, Raechel, Robin, and Rebecca all opposed the petition. See A.R.S. § 14-5309. 2  BAILEY, et al. v. BAILEY, et al. Decision of the Court ¶4 In May 2025, after an all-day hearing, the court ordered that telephone contact “remain the same,” that Ted reasonably accommodate video visits with Nancy based on Amanda’s wishes and schedule, and that Ted allow in-person visits with Nancy. The court also denied Nancy’s request for summer visitation and Amanda’s request, made through her attorney, for a Guardian ad Litem regarding supervised visitation with Nancy. Nancy timely appealed the order. The other Bailey siblings, including Amanda, each have filed answering briefs. We have jurisdiction. A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(9). DISCUSSION I. Compliance with ARCAP 13 ¶5 Appellate briefs must meet certain requirements prescribed by Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13. Appellants must include a statement of the relevant facts and an argument explaining their contentions. ARCAP 13(a)(5), (7). The argument must contain “supporting reasons for each contention,” “citations of legal authorities[,] and appropriate references to . . . the record.” ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A). Appellants who fail to make a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort to comply with [ARCAP 13]” may waive issues on appeal. Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519,