Hernandez v. Nunez

── Hernandez v. Nunez ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: June 02, 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 A. HERNANDEZ, Petitioner/Appellant, v. ANGELA M. NUNEZ, Respondent/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0818 FC FILED 06-02-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County No. S1400DO202300966 The Honorable Mark Wayne Reeves, Judge The Honorable Levi Gunderson, Judge Pro Tempore VACATED APPEARANCES Richard Hernandez, Yuma Petitioner/Appellant Angela Nunez, Phoenix Respondent/Appellee  HERNANDEZ v. NUNEZ 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 Richard Hernandez (“Father”) appeals the superior court’s relocation order and modification of parenting time. For the following reasons, we vacate the court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Father and Angela Nunez (“Mother”) never married but have one minor child (“Child”) in common. In October 2023, Father petitioned the superior court to establish paternity and determine legal decision- making authority and parenting time. The court held an evidentiary hearing in January 2024, issued “Interim Orders,” and took the matter under advisement. In March, the court issued its written order and awarded the parties joint legal decision-making authority, designated Mother the residential custodial parent, and awarded Father parenting time every other week from Thursday to Monday. ¶3 At the time, Child and both parents lived in Yuma. But Mother stated at the evidentiary hearing she was contemplating moving to Phoenix. Between the evidentiary hearing and the court’s March order, Mother filed a notice of her intent to relocate Child to Phoenix claiming better employment options were available to her there. In May 2024, the court held another evidentiary hearing, this time to address Mother’s relocation request, which the court denied. ¶4 In August 2024, Mother filed another notice of intent to relocate Child to Phoenix. Father responded by filing a motion for contempt, alleging Mother had unilaterally relocated with Child to Phoenix before obtaining the court’s permission and that Mother’s notice of intent to relocate was filed before the no “earlier than one year” condition set forth in A.R.S. § 25-411(A). ¶5 In December 2024, the superior court held a hearing on Father’s contempt motion at which Mother told the court that she “did a temporary relocation” to Phoenix for better employment. The court scolded 2  HERNANDEZ v. NUNEZ Decision of the Court Mother for moving without seeking the court’s permission but stated it would set a future hearing if Mother filed a motion for relocation. The court also stated that the parties’ current parenting time order was based on them both living in Yuma, and that Mother’s relocation would necessitate a change in parenting time. ¶6 Mother filed her motion for relocation one week later. In February 2025, the court held a hearing on Mother’s motion. In April 2025, the court issued a written order granting Mother’s relocation request. The court also reduced Father’s parenting time to every other week from Friday to Sunday. ¶7