Griffith v. Bennett

── Griffith v. Bennett ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 28, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: DANIEL WILLIAM GRIFFITH, Petitioner/Appellant, v. DELILAH JOE BENNETT, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0671 FC FILED 05-28-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. S0300DO202400398 The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED COUNSEL Harris & Winger, P.C., Flagstaff By Chad Joshua Winger Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant Aspey Watkins & Diesel, PLLC, Flagstaff By Isabel M. Humphrey Counsel for Respondent/Appellee  GRIFFITH v. BENNETT Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Veronika Fabian and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined. B R O W N, Judge: ¶1 Daniel Griffith (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for dissolution, legal decision-making, and parenting time. Because the court failed to make the requisite “home state” determination under the Uniform Child Custody Enforcement and Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJEA”), we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND ¶2 Father and Delilah Bennett (“Mother”) share one minor child (“Child”), born in May 2023 in Tuba City, on the Navajo Nation. Child’s birth certificate lists Mother’s residential address as being located in Page, Arizona. Mother, but not Father, is a member of the Navajo Nation. Central to this appeal is where Child lived in the months before Father filed his December 2024 petition for dissolution, and thus whether Arizona or the Navajo Nation is Child’s home state under the UCCJEA. See A.R.S. § 25-1002(7)(a)–(b) (defining a child’s home state). ¶3 Mother and Father married in July 2024. Mother asserts that she attends college in Page and lives there during the week while Child stays with Mother’s relatives in Tuba City. Mother usually returns to Tuba City on the weekends. But Father claims the family resided in Page from Child’s birth through October 2024 when Child’s maternal relatives moved her to Tuba City. Mother disagrees, stating the parties lived separately starting one month after their marriage, or from August 2024 onward. ¶4 Mother petitioned the Navajo Nation Family Court (“Navajo Court”) for a domestic abuse protection order in December 2024. She alleged that Father (1) committed domestic violence against her in 2022, (2) took Child to California without her permission for several months in 2023, and (3) threatened to take Child away again in November 2024. Mother also petitioned to establish paternity, requested child custody and support orders, and asked for annulment or dissolution of the marriage. Mother 2  GRIFFITH v. BENNETT Decision of the Court served Father with both petitions. The Navajo Court granted a temporary protective order and set a hearing for the following week but Father did not appear. The court issued a final order of protection, which precluded Father from contacting Mother and awarded her temporary physical custody as well as temporary child support. ¶5 Father moved to vacate the Navajo Court’s order, asserting he was not served with notice of the hearing. Because the record did not show Father was served