Mormillo v. Pearson

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

WYATT ANTHONY MORMILLO,
Petitioner/Appellee,

v.

ANGELICA ROSE PEARSON,
Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0808 FC
FILED 04-15-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FC2024-093677, FC2024-093877
The Honorable Harla M. Davison, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Angelica Rose Pearson, Gilbert
Respondent/Appellant

Wyatt Anthony Mormillo, Mesa
Petitioner/Appellee
MORMILLO v. PEARSON
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court, in
which Judge Andrew J. Becke and Judge Kent E. Cattani joined.

T H U M M A, Judge:

¶1 Angelica Rose Pearson (Mother) challenges an order for
paternity, legal decision-making, parenting time and child support. Mother
argues that Wyatt Anthony Mormillo (Father) should not be allowed to
leave their minor child with his mother while exercising his parenting time,
the court ignored Father’s alleged physical abuse and Father’s mother lied
under oath. Because Mother has shown no error, the order is affirmed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Father have one minor child together, born in
September 2023. In September 2024, Father filed a petition to establish
paternity, legal decision-making, parenting time and child support. In
October 2024, Mother filed her own petition to establish legal decision-
making, parenting time and child support as well as a parenting plan for
sole legal decision-making. The competing petitions were consolidated.

¶3 After a December 2024 temporary orders hearing, the court
found Father was the child’s father, ordered joint legal decision-making,
adopted a plan for parenting time, ordered Father to pay Mother $115 per
month in child support, denied competing requests for an interim award of
attorneys’ fees, and ordered each party to complete an affidavit of financial
information.

¶4 At a July 2025 trial, the court heard testimony from Mother,
Father and Father’s mother and took the matter under advisement. In an
August 2025 ruling, the court found that both parties committed an act of
domestic violence against the other, and that Mother abused alcohol, but
Father did not. The court awarded the parties joint legal decision-making,
equal parenting time on a two-week schedule and ordered no child support
payments. Finding Mother had considerably more financial resources and
acted unreasonably in the litigation, the court awarded Father $6,302.50 in
attorneys’ fees and costs.

2
MORMILLO v. PEARSON
Decision of the Court

¶5 This court has jurisdiction over Mother’s timely notice of
appeal from the August 2025 ruling under Article 6, Section 9, of the
Arizona Constitution and Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1) (2026).1

DISCUSSION

¶6 Mother’s opening brief fails to comply with ARCAP 13, which
typically constitutes waiver. See, e.g., Ramos v. Nichols, 252 Ariz. 519, 523 ¶¶
10-11 (App. 2022). Mother also failed to provide any transcripts of the
superior court hearings. This court will presume a missing transcript
supports the superior court’s rulings. See Myrick v. Maloney, 235 Ariz. 491,
495 ¶ 11 (App. 2014). Despite these failures, given the issues involved
(including the best interests of a minor child), this court addresses Mother’s
arguments.

I. The Parenting Time Ruling Was Not Error.

¶7 Mother asserts that Father exercising his parenting time at his
parents’ house should not be allowed because she “should not be
sharing/losing [her] parenting time to [Father’s] mother.” Mother alleges
that Father and his mother, on one occasion, ignored her calls and texts and
kept the child away from her, which prompted her to call the police. Mother
asserts Father and his mother “kidnapped” the child that day, and “kept
her from [her] for 3 days.”

¶8 This court reviews parenting time orders for an abuse of
discretion. Nold v. Nold, 232 Ariz. 270, 273 ¶ 11 (App. 2013). To determine
parenting time, “the court shall adopt a parenting plan that provides for
both parents to share legal decision-making regarding their child and that
maximizes their respective parenting time.” A.R.S. § 25-403.02(B). Here, the
court granted the parties equal parenting time, on a two-week schedule,
and found the plan was “practical and also maximizes each parent’s
parenting time to the extent it is in the child’s best interests.” When
determining parenting time, the starting point is equal parenting time.
Smith v. Smith, 253 Ariz. 43, 47 ¶ 17 (App. 2022). From there, “the superior
court may adjust a parent’s parenting time after considering several
variables, such as relocation, domestic violence, and the children’s best
interests.” Id. (citation omitted). The record provides support that this was
done here. Moreover, Mother’s arguments regarding compliance with the

1 Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited

refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

3
MORMILLO v. PEARSON
Decision of the Court

parenting time ordered can be addressed by the superior court. See Ariz. R.
Fam. L.P. 91.3; A.R.S. § 25-411(A). Mother has shown no error in the
parenting time order.

II. The Court Correctly Addressed Domestic Violence.

¶9 Mother alleges the court ignored instances of domestic
violence by Father, both towards herself and their child. Mother asserts
that, at the temporary orders hearing, she “mentioned the physical abuse
and child abuse that [Father] confessed to and it was still dismissed and he
was awarded temporary joint custody.” Mother adds that, at trial, she
brought up fighting between the couple, but Father was “again awarded
joint legal decision making and joint parenting time after all the evidence
provided.”

¶10 By statute, if the court finds that a parent has committed
domestic violence against the other parent, see A.R.S. § 25-403.03(C), the
court must then determine whether the offending parent has rebutted the
statutory presumption under A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D). See A.R.S. § 25-
403.03(E). But this presumption does not apply if both parents have
committed an act of domestic violence. See A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D). Here, the
order considered the statutory factors, including an order of protection
Mother obtained against Father. A.R.S. § 25-403.03(C).

¶11 The court found that both Mother and Father engaged in acts
of domestic violence. The court then analyzed the categories of domestic
violence under A.R.S. § 25-403.03 and addressed the presumption under
A.R.S. § 25-403.03(D). The court found that the competing acts of domestic
violence negated the statutory presumption because both parents
committed an act of domestic violence against the other. Mother has shown
no error in that finding. And when the presumption does not apply, the
parties can be awarded joint legal decision-making. See A.R.S. § 25-
403.03(A) & (D). That is what happened here. On this record, Mother has
shown no error in the award of joint legal decision-making.

III. Mother Has Not Proven Father’s Mother Lied Under Oath.

¶12 Mother asserts that Father’s mother lied under oath about a
phone call she alleges never occurred between them and stated Mother said
things that never happened on a separate occasion. Mother, however, did
not provide a transcript of the competing testimony, which is presumed to
support the court’s conclusions. See Myrick, 235 Ariz. at 495 ¶ 11. Nor has
she shown that the superior court improperly resolved conflicting
testimony, if such testimony was presented to that court. Hurd v. Hurd, 223

4
MORMILLO v. PEARSON
Decision of the Court

Ariz. 48, 52 ¶ 16 (App. 2009) (“Our duty on review does not include re-
weighing conflicting evidence.”).

CONCLUSION

¶13 The August 2025 ruling is affirmed.

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5