Jared Robert George Grow v. Jennifer Marie Grow

¶1 The trial court dismissed Jared Robert Grow (father)’s petition

to enforce court-ordered child care but denied Jennifer Marie Grow

(mother)’s request for sanctions. For the following reasons, we affirm the

dismissal of father’s petition but impose a sanction against father and his

attorney.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and father were divorced in 2010. They have two

minor children together. The consent decree provided that “[t]he parties

shall share the cost of unreimbursed . . . child care . . . in proportion to

his/her respective income as indicated on the child support worksheet.”

¶3 In 2015, the court recalculated father’s child support

obligation and filed a child support worksheet and order. The court

ordered each party to pay their respective share of child care directly to the

provider. Under the 2015 worksheet, father’s share was seventy percent

and mother’s share was thirty percent.1

¶4 In April 2016, father filed a petition to enforce court-ordered

child care/request for clarification asking the court to order mother to pay

fifty percent of the children’s child care expenses because “[c]hild care is

used equally by both parties during their parenting time . . . .” Mother filed

a motion to dismiss the petition and request for sanctions seeking an award

of her costs and document preparation fees. Father filed a response. He

subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his petition with prejudice, stating

that he did not wish to proceed with his petition. On the same day father

filed his motion to withdraw, the trial court granted mother’s motion to

dismiss without awarding sanctions. The court found that there was

“nothing vague” about the court’s 2015 order that the parties would pay

1 The court also previously ordered the parties to pay their pro rata shares

for daycare in 2012 and 2015.

GROW v. GROW

Decision of the Court

3

their respective share of childcare based on the 2015 child support

worksheet wherein father’s share was seventy percent and mother’s share

was thirty.

¶5 After the court dismissed father’s petition, mother filed a

motion for judgment on her request for sanctions seeking $3145.50. The

trial court denied the motion. Mother timely appealed from the portion of

the judgment that denied her request for sanctions.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Mother argues that the trial court abused its discretion by

denying her request for sanctions. We review all aspects of a court’s

decision related to sanctions under Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure

31 for an abuse of discretion. See James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu

Plumbing & Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316, 319 (App. 1993) (considering Arizona

Rule of Civil Procedure 11, on which Rule 31 is predicated, as stated in Ariz.

R. Fam. LP. 31, Committee Comment). Mother argues that Arizona Rule of

Family Law Procedure 31(A), Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and

Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 25-324 (2017) required the court to

award sanctions in this case, in light of the court’s finding that there was

nothing vague about the court’s order that father was to pay seventy

percent of childcare costs and mother was to pay thirty percent.

¶7 Section 25-324(B)(2) directs, among other things, that if a court

determines that a party filed a petition “not grounded in fact or based on

law,” “the court shall award reasonable costs and attorney fees to the other

party.” Similarly, Arizona Rule of Family Law Procedure 31 is violated

when a party or attorney files a pleading or paper and knows or should

have known after reasonable inquiry that the claim or defense is legally or

factually groundless or when the paper filed is intended to cause delay,

harassment, or some other improper purpose.

¶8 Father has failed to file an answering brief in this matter. “[A]

failure to file an answering brief is equivalent to a confession of error by

appellee.” Welch v. United Mut. Benefit Ass’n, 48 Ariz. 173 (1936) (citations

omitted). Because the trial court did not award sanctions, we affirm the

dismissal of father’s petition but modify the trial court’s order to impose a

sanction against father and his attorney in the amount of $1000.

GROW v. GROW

¶9 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm but modify the trial

court’s order.