NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
HOWE, Presiding Judge.
¶1 Robert Kasper (Father) appeals from an order declining his petition to modify legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support for the parties' two minor children to Leah Ray (Mother).
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 Mother and Father divorced in November 2007. The parties each wanted custody of their two children. In determining custody, the court found that significant domestic violence existed during the marriage caused by Father, and that joint legal custody would not be successful. The court ordered that Mother have sole legal custody and primary physical custody of the two children. Father was awarded parenting time alternating weekends from Friday after school until returning the children to school on Monday, and from Thursday each week after school until Friday when the children were returned to school. Holidays and vacation time were divided between the parents. The court also awarded Mother child support payments of $558.60 per month from Father.
¶3 In 2012, Father petitioned to modify the divorce decree, seeking joint legal decision-making of the children, equal parenting time, and a modification of child support. On December 19, 2012, the court held a Return Hearing on Father's petition. The court ordered a family assessment by a psychologist to address the post-decree dynamics between the parties and its effects on the children. The parties were interviewed and a report was completed.
¶4 Following an evidentiary hearing, the court issued its order, noting that Mother and Father are not amicable. The court explained that the parties are so contentious that it believed that the parties would fight over every medical and school issue and the children would "lose out" if joint decision-making were awarded. The court stated further that it did "not believe that the parties would be able to cooperate [in joint legal decision-making]. No one would want to cooperate with anyone that talked to them the way the parties talk to and about each other."
¶5 Turning to a determination regarding legal decision-making and parenting time, the court considered the factors enumerated in A.R.S. § 25-403(A) regarding the children's best interests. The court made specific findings regarding each factor, including whether there had been domestic violence or child abuse pursuant to § 25-403.03.
¶6 The court found that Father had engaged in significant acts of domestic violence against Mother prior to entry of the divorce decree in 2007. The court turned to section (E), which allows factors for the court to consider whether a parent who has committed acts of domestic violence may rebut the presumption against sole or joint legal decision-making to a parent who has committed acts of domestic violence. A.R.S. § 25-403.03 (D), (E). After considering the six enumerated factors, the court found that Father had rebutted the presumption, and therefore, joint legal decision-making was not precluded, but the court concluded it was not "in the best interest of the children." The court found that based upon all the factors, it was in the children's best interest that Mother have sole legal decision-making authority of the children.
¶7 The court also denied Father's request to modify parenting time, finding it was not in the children's best interest. The court ordered Father to pay child support to Mother in the amount of $685.43 per month.
¶8 Father timely appeals the denial of his requests for joint legal decision-making, equal parenting time, and a reduction in child support.
DISCUSSION
¶9 We review the family court's decision regarding child custody and parenting time for an abuse of discretion. Owen v. Blackhawk, 206 Ariz. 418, 420 ¶ 7, 79 P.3d 667, 669 (App. 2003). On a petition to modify legal decision-making, the court must consider the factors listed in A.R.S. § 25-403 to determine the outcome in the children's best interests. Hurd v. Hurd, 223 Ariz. 48, 51 ¶ 11, 219 P.3d 258, 261 (App. 2009).
I. Legal Decision-Making
¶10 Father argues that the court erred in awarding sole legal decision-making to Mother. He states that the evidence suggested relatively equal weight between Mother and Father, and therefore, the award should have been for joint legal decision-making. Father does not specifically argue against any of the court's findings, but believes that the outcome should have been different.
¶11 This Court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the family court's findings, and will not reweigh the evidence. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 152 Ariz. 317, 323, 732 P.2d 208, 214 (1987). We do not reweigh the evidence because the superior court, as the trier of fact, determines the credibility of witnesses and the facts to make its decision. Mary Lou C. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 207 Ariz. 43, 47 ¶ 8, 83 P.3d 43, 47 (App. 2004).
¶12 Substantial evidence existed to support the court's finding that joint decision-making was not in the children's best interests. Several e-mails in the record support the court's comments that the parties were uncooperative and contentious. The e-mails show that simply communicating the children's activities created tension and argument between the parties. The court noted that "the children would lose out" if joint decision-making were awarded, because it believed that, based upon the parties' behavior, the parties likely would disagree over every decision, and nothing would get done. The family court did not err in awarding sole legal decision making to Mother.
II. Parenting Time
¶13 Father argues that the family court erred in declining to give him more parenting time. Father makes no legal argument in his brief, but merely argues that "all things being equal, the statute seems to suggest Mother and Father should be awarded joint legal decision-making and close to equal parenting time." Although the court may modify an order of parenting time whenever modification would serve the children's best interests, A.R.S. § 25-411(J), the court has broad discretion over determining parenting time because it is in the best position to determine what is best for the children, Armer v. Armer, 105 Ariz. 284, 289, 463 P.2d 818, 823 (1970).
¶14 The family court did not abuse its discretion in declining to change the parenting time. The court reviewed the factors required by § 25-403 and found that a change in parenting time was not in the best interests of the children. Father pointed to nothing that warranted changing the previously set parenting time scheme. The family court did not err.
III. Child Support
¶15 Father argues that the award of child support is incorrect because it erroneously attributed $162.00 per month to Mother for child care costs, when no evidence was offered at trial to substantiate any such costs. We review the trial court's decision on a petition to modify a child support award for an abuse of discretion. Little v. Little, 193 Ariz. 518, 520 ¶ 5, 975 P.2d 108, 110 (1999). An abuse of discretion exists when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court, lacks competent evidence to support the decision. Id.
¶16 Mother and Father offered conflicting testimony regarding child care expenses. Father testified that they had no child care expenses. Mother testified that she used child care for one of the children the previous summer, and she might need it before or after school in the upcoming school year. Evidence existed to support the finding that Mother needed child care services. We find no abuse of discretion.
IV. Attorneys' Fees
¶17 Mother seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 25-324 and 12-342. Section 25-324 allows a court, after considering the financial resources of the parties and the reasonableness of the positions the parties have taken through the proceedings, may order a party to pay a reasonable amount to the other party for the costs and expenses of maintaining or defending a proceeding under that chapter. A.R.S. § 25-324(A). In our discretion, we deny Mother's request for fees, however, we award Mother her costs on appeal pursuant to her compliance with Arizona Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.
CONCLUSION
¶18 We affirm the decision of the family court.
