Case Update (11 July 2023): In re Azin; trial court did not err when letting sole legal custodian father take child to Iran to visit family
The child-at-issue was born in 2015. Shortly after the child's birth, the child's Father petitioned to establish paternity and for legal decision-making authority and parenting time. At the time, the child was living with her Maternal Grandparents. They intervened in the Father's family law case, and requested sole legal decision-making authority and supervised access for both parents. They also asked for a prohibition on the Father obtaining any travel document for the child and traveling more than 50 miles from their home without a court order. About one year later, the Father and Grandparents signed an agreement, adopted by the trial court. They agreed to joint legal decision-making authority for one year, and then it would revert to sole legal decision-making authority to the Father thereafter. Father and Grandparents also shared parenting time. The Agreement included a provision that stated, "[I]f Father wishes to take [the child] outside the United States, he must either obtain [Maternal Grandparents'] specific written agreement or a court order."
In or around 2021, the Father asked the grandparents for permission to travel to Iran with the child to visit his parents, but they declined. He therefore petitioned the court, seeking to "modify the Agreement" (which he later amended). In his petition, he asked for permission to travel to Iran, or alternatively, to the UAE. The Grandparents opposed the petition, expressing safety concerns, and a fear of child abduction. The case went to trial in August 2022, where the Grandparents brought forth an expert on Islamic family law. The Father's petition was granted, and he was permitted to travel with the child, subject to a cash bond of $100,000.
The appellate court looked primarily at whether the Father's petition was framed as a modification of his parenting time with the child or an enforcement of his legal decision-making authority, as the sole legal custodian (at this point). Legal decision-making in Arizona designates the sole legal decision-maker as the parent who can determine the child's upbringing, unless the court has limited that authority by finding "the child's physical health would be endangered or the child's emotional development would be significantly impaired..." The appellate court ultimately found the father to have requested to enforce his decision-making authority, meaning that the standard to be applied by the trial court is "patently more onerous than the 'best interest' test." The Grandparents did not meet this higher burden, and therefore the trial judge's ruling is to be affirmed.
*This is an unpublished decision.