The Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling regarding legal decision-making and parenting time between Connell Joel Warner and Sandra Gaile Gurule. This decision affects their child, born in June 2016, and highlights the court's considerations regarding domestic violence and the best interests of the child.

The case, Warner v. Gurule, was filed under docket number 1 CA-CV 26-0004 FC. It originated from a dispute over parenting arrangements after a history of domestic violence allegations. The court's ruling is significant for parents navigating similar issues, as it reinforces how courts evaluate evidence and make decisions in custody cases.

Background

Connell Warner (Father) and Sandra Gurule (Mother) have been involved in a legal battle concerning their child since Father petitioned to establish legal decision-making and parenting time in 2023. The dispute escalated after Mother obtained an order of protection against Father due to a domestic violence incident. This led to competing petitions for temporary orders throughout 2023, prompting the court to appoint an advisor to investigate the allegations.

In March 2024, the parties reached an agreement that awarded them joint legal decision-making regarding educational matters, with Mother retaining presumptive decision-making authority. The court found that while Father had committed domestic violence against Mother, it did not meet the threshold of “significant” domestic violence, allowing for joint decision-making. The court also ordered no child support obligations.

The Ruling

In November 2025, Father petitioned to modify the existing legal decision-making and parenting time orders, claiming that Mother failed to take their child to school and counseling. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled in favor of Father, granting him presumptive legal decision-making authority and designating him as the primary residential parent. Mother was awarded parenting time every weekend during the school year, except the first weekend of each month, and equal parenting time during the summer.

The court found that there had been a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, specifically citing the child’s school absences and Mother’s failure to ensure counseling. Judge Kent E. Cattani stated, “The court found that Child’s multiple absences from school and Mother’s failure to take Child to counseling were changes in circumstances affecting Child’s welfare.” The ruling was affirmed by Presiding Judge Veronika Fabian and Judge Michael S. Catlett.

Impact

This ruling underscores the importance of a child's welfare in custody disputes and how courts assess evidence related to domestic violence. The court's decision to uphold the modification of parenting time and legal decision-making authority reflects its commitment to prioritizing the child’s best interests. It also highlights the court's discretion in evaluating claims of domestic violence and the necessity for parents to demonstrate ongoing compliance with court orders.

The ruling may set a precedent for similar cases where one parent alleges domestic violence but fails to provide new evidence to challenge previous court findings. It emphasizes that courts will not revisit issues already decided unless new evidence is presented, reinforcing the stability of existing orders.

What's Next

Mother has the option to appeal the decision, but the court's ruling is currently final. There are no related cases pending at this time. The court filing did not name the attorneys involved in the case.