The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling regarding the divorce case of Eric M. Kaltz and Katherine M. Kaltz, which has significant implications for their family. The court's decision addressed multiple issues, including legal decision-making authority, parenting time, spousal maintenance, and child support. This ruling affects not only the parents but also their two children, who are at the center of the custody dispute.

The case, filed under docket number 1 CA-CV 25-1010 FC, reached the Court of Appeals after a series of decisions made by the Maricopa County Superior Court. Eric Kaltz, the petitioner and appellant, challenged several orders from the lower court, which had previously modified various aspects of the couple's divorce agreement.

Background

Eric and Katherine Kaltz married in 2015 and have two children together. In 2022, Eric filed for divorce, leading to a contentious legal battle over custody and financial responsibilities. The Superior Court issued a decree in March 2024, which awarded Katherine sole legal decision-making authority over the children and established a 5-2-2-5 parenting time schedule. Eric was also ordered to pay $3,000 per month in spousal maintenance and $1,383 per month in child support.

After the decree, the situation became more complicated. Katherine moved to Michigan with the children, prompting Eric to file for modifications to the existing orders, claiming a significant change in circumstances. He argued that he could no longer afford the spousal maintenance and child support payments due to a decrease in his income. Katherine, in turn, sought to modify the parenting time schedule, citing Eric's failure to meet his financial obligations as a reason for her relocation.

The Ruling

On October 30, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals, presided over by Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, ruled on the various appeals filed by Eric Kaltz. The court affirmed some of the lower court's decisions while vacating others and remanding them for further consideration. The court stated, "We affirm the superior court’s order awarding the parties joint legal decision-making authority; vacate the court’s order directing week-on/week-off parenting time and remand for the court to either make specific findings supporting that ruling or enter a different parenting time order with appropriate findings."

The court's decision included affirming the joint legal decision-making authority awarded to both parents, but it also vacated the parenting time schedule established by the lower court. The court found that the lower court had not provided sufficient reasoning for the week-on/week-off schedule, which deviated from the previously established 5-2-2-5 schedule. The judges emphasized that the best interests of the children must be the primary consideration in any custody arrangement.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both parents and their children. The court's decision to modify the parenting time schedule means that the lower court must now provide clear reasoning for its choices, ensuring that the children's best interests remain the focus. Additionally, the court affirmed the reduction of Eric's spousal maintenance obligations to $1,502 per month and child support to $470 per month, reflecting his decreased income.

The designation of both parents as vexatious litigants, which the court vacated, highlights the ongoing contentious nature of this case. The court's ruling serves as a reminder that both parents must engage in constructive communication and avoid unnecessary litigation that could harm their children.

What's Next

The case may still see further developments as the court has remanded certain issues for reconsideration. The lower court must now clarify its reasoning regarding the parenting time schedule and address the educational decision-making authority for the children. Both parents may also have the option to appeal certain aspects of this ruling, depending on how the lower court proceeds.