Carrick v. Villarreal

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

In re the Matter of:

TIA CARRICK, Petitioner/Appellant,

v.

GABRIEL JAMES VILLARREAL, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0923 FC
FILED 06-26-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. FN2024-050994
The Honorable Lori Ash, Judge, Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Tia Carrick, Peoria
Petitioner/Appellant

Gabriel Villarreal, Peoria
Respondent/Appellee
CARRICK v. VILLARREAL
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Tia Carrick (“Mother”) appeals the superior court’s
modification of an order of protection granted against Gabriel J. Villarreal
(“Father”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Mother and Father were never married and have two minor
children in common, G.V. and J.V. In June 2024, Mother filed a petition for
an order of protection against Father on behalf of herself and her children,
alleging abuse, stalking, and harassment. The court granted the order of
protection and included the children’s school as a protected location.

¶3 In September 2025, Mother moved to modify the order of
protection and make the school’s address confidential, which the court
granted. One week later, Father requested a hearing to contest the order. At
the hearing, Mother submitted a supplement to her petition, so Father
requested a continuance. A continued hearing was held two weeks later,
and after receiving testimony from both parties, the court found good cause
to continue the order of protection but removed the children and their
school from it.

¶4 Mother and Father both timely appealed, but we dismissed
Father’s appeal in January 2026 after he failed to file an opening brief. We
now address Mother’s appeal.

¶5 We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9 of the
Arizona Constitution, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) Section
12-2101(A)(5)(b), and Arizona Rules of Protective Order Procedure 42(a)(2).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Mother argues the court erred in removing her children and
their school from the order of protection. Father did not file an answering
brief, which we may consider a confession of reversible error where
debatable issues exist. Savord v. Morton, 235 Ariz. 256, 259 ¶ 9 (App. 2014).

2
CARRICK v. VILLARREAL
Decision of the Court

But because the children’s best interests are involved, we decline to apply
the confession of error doctrine. In re Marriage of Diezsi, 201 Ariz. 524, 525
¶ 2 (App. 2002) (declining to apply confession of error in child custody
case).

¶7 We review the court’s modification of an order of protection
for abuse of discretion. Savord, 235 Ariz. at 259 ¶ 10. “A trial court abuses
its discretion when it makes an error of law in reaching a discretionary
conclusion or when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to
upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to
support the decision.” Id. (citation modified). When an appellant argues
that a judgment is unsupported by the record, it is the appellant’s
responsibility to include “the record transcripts of all proceedings
containing evidence relevant to [the] judgment[.]” ARCAP 11(c)(1)(B).
When a transcript is absent from the record, “we assume[] [it] would
support the court’s findings and conclusions.” Baker v. Baker, 183 Ariz. 70,
73 (App. 1995).

¶8 Mother contends the court’s modification is unsupported by
the record because its findings that “the children were not likely to be
harmed” and “the school did not require protection” contradict the court’s
additional findings of Father’s “ongoing stalking behavior and GPS-
confirmed proximity violations.” Because Mother failed to include the
hearing transcript in the record, we are limited to the court’s findings listed
in a minute entry.

¶9 The minute entry does not include the specific findings
Mother now contests on appeal, so without the transcript, we cannot
confirm the court made such findings or determine whether the court erred
in its analysis. The minute entry shows only that the court found “by a
preponderance of the evidence that [Father] may commit an act of domestic
violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the last
year[,]” such that there is “good cause to continue the Order of Protection.”
It also shows the court found “it appropriate . . . to remove the minor
children” from the order of protection. Because we assume the transcript
supports the court’s findings, id., Mother has failed to show the court
abused its discretion.

¶10 Mother also contends the court erred in removing her
children from the order of protection by “ignor[ing] uncontroverted
evidence” related to Father’s criminal conduct. When the superior court is
presented with conflicting evidence, it is the court’s responsibility to
exercise discretion in weighing such evidence. Vanwormer v. Lopez, 259 Ariz.

3
CARRICK v. VILLARREAL
Decision of the Court

87, 90 ¶ 9 (App. 2025). We will not reweigh conflicting evidence on appeal
and we defer to the superior court’s determinations. Id. Thus, Mother has
failed to show an abuse of discretion.

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm.

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

4