Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
McCallum v. Costello
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-06-22
In McCallum v. Costello, divorced parents Michael McCallum and Erin Costello disputed modifications to legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support for their 12-year-old son. Mother petitioned for sole decision-making authority, permission to relocate the child to California, and supervised parenting time for Father, citing a prior domestic violence finding against Father and concerns about his alcohol use. The superior court denied the petition after trial, maintaining the 2016 joint legal decision-making and equal unsupervised parenting time arrangement, rejecting relocation, and denying a child support change. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the domestic violence presumption did not apply because the alleged incident involved Father’s ex-girlfriend rather than Mother, the alcohol presumption was inapplicable due to the timing of Father’s DUI, and the evidence—including the court-appointed advisor’s report and the child’s expressed wishes—showed no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification and supported the child’s best interests in the existing schedule.
family law
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to J.S.
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-06-19
In this Arizona case, a mother appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her young daughter after the father petitioned on grounds of abandonment and neglect. The mother had made repeated unsubstantiated abuse allegations against the father, leading to the revocation of her parenting time; she then made no effort to arrange supervised visits or contact the child for 19 months. The juvenile court terminated her rights on abandonment grounds (but not neglect), finding termination served the child's best interests by enabling adoption by the stepmother and providing stability, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that the prolonged lack of contact met the statutory definition of abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-531(1) as prima facie evidence, measured by conduct rather than intent, and that adoption would affirmatively benefit the child while continued contact would cause emotional harm.
family law
Kaiser v. Gamarano
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-06-11
In Kaiser v. Gamarano, unmarried parents Amanda Kaiser and Dominic Gamarano disputed legal decision-making authority for their two children after informal shared parenting ended in conflict, with both initially seeking joint authority and equal parenting time but disagreeing on education (Mother favored continuing Catholic school; Father sought a non-religious alternative due to cost and alleged issues like bullying). The family court granted joint legal decision-making overall but awarded Mother final authority on education decisions, ordered the children to stay in their current school for the rest of the year (with Mother bearing full tuition), and sanctioned Father with partial attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 25-415 for knowingly presenting a false sexual abuse allegation against Mother’s new husband, which investigations by police, DCS, and a court-appointed advisor found unsubstantiated. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the family court made required findings on all relevant best-interests factors under A.R.S. § 25-403, that the record supported its conclusions without abuse of discretion, and that the ruling did not violate Father’s rights since he retained joint authority and could address religion during his parenting time.
family lawreligious liberty
State v. Freestone
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-06-08
In State v. Freestone, Collin Freestone was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated driving under the influence, a class 4 felony, based on evidence that an officer stopped him for drifting into a bike lane, he admitted recent marijuana use and a revoked license, and a smoldering joint was found in his car; he had also failed to appear for trial. On appeal, Freestone argued that the trial court erred by striking a prospective juror for cause over his objection and by allowing the State to introduce evidence that he had requested an attorney, which cut short the DUI investigation. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in excusing the juror, who had expressed a bias favoring the defense and equivocated about her ability to be impartial and follow instructions. The court further held that defense counsel opened the door during cross-examination by highlighting the brevity of the investigation and lack of field sobriety tests, making the officer’s limited redirect testimony about the attorney request admissible as responsive clarification rather than improper comment on invocation of rights.
criminal lawprocedure
Treptow v. Vitellaro-Martorell
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-05-07
In this family law dispute, parents Jake Treptow and Tabitha Vitellaro-Martorell, who share two young children under joint legal decision-making and a divided parenting-time schedule, filed cross-petitions alleging mutual violations of court orders on communication via Our Family Wizard, medical decisions, make-up parenting time, and other issues. The family court held an evidentiary hearing and found Mother in contempt for obstructing make-up time, exceeding message guidelines, and excluding Father from medical decisions, while finding Father in contempt for similar medical and babysitter-related violations; it awarded Father attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 25-414(C), reduced for his own conduct, but did not address Mother’s claim that Father failed to respond timely to messages. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction and affirmed the contempt findings on medical decisions, make-up time, and Mother’s communication violations, but remanded because the family court had not ruled on Father’s alleged violations of the response guidelines despite Mother properly raising the issue. The court also vacated the fee award for reevaluation on remand after the additional claim is addressed.
family law
Al Jajo v. arrowhead/benchmark
Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2026-05-05
Abdulahad Al Jajo, a security guard injured in 2021 when he fractured his hip at work for Arrowhead Security Inc. (VetSec), challenged an Industrial Commission of Arizona determination that he had only a modest loss of earning capacity after his claim was closed with a 22% permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision finding that Al Jajo had no loss of earning capacity and was therefore not entitled to additional disability benefits. The court reasoned that orthopedic surgeon Dr. David Ott’s independent medical examinations established Al Jajo could return to sedentary or light-duty security work with specific restrictions, that VetSec offered to rehire him at the same or higher pay while accommodating those limits, and that two labor-market consultants confirmed this would eliminate any earning-capacity loss. Al Jajo presented no contradicting medical evidence, and the ALJ reasonably found his testimony about being unable to work more than three hours per week insufficient to meet his burden of proving he could not return to his prior job.
labor & employment