Gonzales v. Dayton

── Gonzales v. Dayton ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 26, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: RICHARD GONZALES, Petitioner/Appellee, v. RAYLENE GENE DAYTON, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0659 FC FILED 05-26-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2024-005515 The Honorable Hope E. Fruchtman, Judge Pro Tempore VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Raylene Gene Dayton, Prescott Respondent/Appellant Richard Gonzales, Phoenix Petitioner/Appellee  GONZALES v. DAYTON 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 Raylene Gene Dayton (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s order establishing legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. Because the court considered a report that was not admitted in evidence, we vacate and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Mother and Richard Gonzales (“Father”) have two minor children in common, born in April 2021 and June 2022. In October 2024, alleging Mother refused to let him visit the children, Father filed a petition to establish legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support. He requested joint legal decision-making authority and parenting time every weekend. Mother requested sole legal decision-making authority and no parenting time for Father. A court-appointed advisor (“CAA”) was ordered to investigate and make recommendations. The superior court ordered the Department of Child Safety (“DCS”) to provide records to the CAA given allegations of child abuse and neglect. ¶3 In February 2025, the CAA submitted her report to the court and the court reviewed the report with the parties at a status conference, where the CAA testified. The court determined that, while there were concerns about child abuse by others, DCS records did not establish that Father was a perpetrator. The court issued temporary orders allowing Father parenting time every other weekend until entry of final orders. ¶4 After a one-day trial in June 2025, where the CAA did not testify and the CAA’s report was not received in evidence, the court issued final orders providing for joint legal decision-making authority, with the children to reside primarily with Mother. The order authorized Father to have parenting time that increased in stages until he had three weekends a month during the school year and week on/week off during the summer break. Father was ordered to pay $543 in monthly child support. 2  GONZALES v. DAYTON Decision of the Court ¶5 We have jurisdiction over Mother’s timely appeal under Article 6, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 12- 120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(2). DISCUSSION I. The Superior Court Did Not Ignore Mother’s Exhibits nor Prevent Her from Presenting Her Case. ¶6 Mother argues the superior court committed “structural due process error” when it ignored her exhibits and ended trial before she presented her case-in-chief. The facts do not support Mother’s claims. ¶7 Mother did not list any trial exhibits in any pretrial filing. At trial, Mother did not move to admit any exhibits. To the contrary