BAILEY v. BAILEY

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 the Matter of the Guardianship of:

AMANDA C. BAILEY, An Adult.
______________________________

THEODORE BAILEY, Petitioner/Appellee,

and

REBECCA BAILEY, et al., Respondents/Appellees.

v.

NANCY BAILEY, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 25-0512 PB
FILED 05-11-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. PB2016-090709
The Honorable Janette Corral, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Baumann, Doyle, Paytas & Bernstein, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ
By Michael J. Doyle
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Amanda B.
Duenas Eden Cravatta, PLC, Phoenix, AZ
By Amy Olthouse Duenas
Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Theodore Bailey

Rebecca Bailey, Tecumseh, MI
Respondent/Appellee

Robin J. Bailey-Webb, Gladstone, MI
Respondent/Appellee

Raechel Bailey Kolb, Grand Junction, CO
Respondent/Appellee

Nancy Bailey, Goetzville, MI
Respondent/Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Jennifer M. Perkins delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Angela K. Paton joined.

P E R K I N S, Judge:

¶1 Nancy Bailey appeals a court order setting visitation terms
with her sister, Amanda Bailey, an adult ward. For the following reasons,
we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 This appeal arises out of a family dispute between five
siblings (Ted Bailey, Nancy Bailey, Raechel Bailey Kolb, Rebecca Bailey, and
Robin Bailey-Webb) over visitation between Nancy and Amanda, an adult
woman with Down Syndrome and the youngest sibling of the Bailey clan.
Amanda lives in Arizona with Ted, who is her guardian. Nancy lives in
Michigan.

¶3 In February 2024, Nancy petitioned in Arizona for visitation
with Amanda. She requested Amanda spend summers in Michigan with
her and be allowed to call Nancy whenever Amanda wants. Ted, Raechel,
Robin, and Rebecca all opposed the petition. See A.R.S. § 14-5309.

2
BAILEY, et al. v. BAILEY, et al.
Decision of the Court

¶4 In May 2025, after an all-day hearing, the court ordered that
telephone contact “remain the same,” that Ted reasonably accommodate
video visits with Nancy based on Amanda’s wishes and schedule, and that
Ted allow in-person visits with Nancy. The court also denied Nancy’s
request for summer visitation and Amanda’s request, made through her
attorney, for a Guardian ad Litem regarding supervised visitation with
Nancy. Nancy timely appealed the order. The other Bailey siblings,
including Amanda, each have filed answering briefs. We have jurisdiction.
A.R.S. § 12-2101(A)(9).

DISCUSSION

I. Compliance with ARCAP 13

¶5 Appellate briefs must meet certain requirements prescribed
by Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure (“ARCAP”) 13. Appellants
must include a statement of the relevant facts and an argument explaining
their contentions. ARCAP 13(a)(5), (7). The argument must contain
“supporting reasons for each contention,” “citations of legal authorities[,]
and appropriate references to . . . the record.” ARCAP 13(a)(7)(A).
Appellants who fail to make a “bona fide and reasonably intelligent effort
to comply with [ARCAP 13]” may waive issues on appeal. Ramos v. Nichols,
252 Ariz. 519, 522, ¶ 9 (App. 2022). Arizona courts hold unrepresented
litigants “to the same standards as attorneys and do not afford them special
leniency.” Id. at ¶ 8.

¶6 Nancy’s opening brief does not comply with ARCAP 13’s
requirements. Though she attempts to cite some legal authority, she fails to
meaningfully explain how this authority supports her arguments. And her
opening brief lacks any specific citations to the record. See ARCAP 13(d)
(references to the record must be accompanied by a citation to the index,
exhibit, or transcript page where the evidence appears). Beyond that, her
table of citations does not comply with ARCAP 13(a)(2) and her statement
of the case does not include a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. ARCAP
13(a)(4).

¶7 While Nancy raises some arguments in her reply briefs, she
has waived them by not raising them in her opening brief. Ramos, 252 Ariz.
at 523, ¶ 11. What is more, Nancy has not provided the May 2025 hearing
transcripts on appeal. So even if she had not waived her arguments, we
would assume the record supported the court’s order. See Kohler v. Kohler,
211 Ariz. 106, 108, ¶ 8, n.1 (App. 2005) (“In the absence of a transcript, an

3
BAILEY, et al. v. BAILEY, et al.
Decision of the Court

appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court’s
rulings.”).

¶8 Raechel and Rebecca also raise issues for our review, but their
briefs are similarly deficient. See ARCAP 13(b)(1) (an answering brief “must
follow the requirements of [ARCAP] 13(a), except that it does not need to
include a statement of the case, a statement of facts, or a statement of the
issues”). Their briefs omit tables of contents and citations, are unsupported
by any legal authority, and do not contain specific references to the record.
ARCAP 13(a)(1-2), (7).

¶9 Because Nancy, Raechel, and Rebecca have not made “bona
fide and reasonably intelligent effort[s]” to comply with ARCAP 13, they
have waived any appealable issues.

II. Attorney Fees

¶10 All that remains are the parties’ requests for fees and
sanctions. Ted requests his attorney fees under ARCAP 21. We deny his
request because ARCAP 21 does not provide an independent basis for an
award of attorney fees and Ted does not cite a statute, rule, or other
substantive authority for his request. See ARCAP 21(a)(2). We decline
Raechel’s request for fees because she represents herself. Munger Chadwick,
P.L.C. v. Farwest Dev. & Const. of the Sw., LLC, 235 Ariz. 125, 126, ¶ 5 (App.
2014) (“[P]arties who represent themselves in a legal action are not entitled
to recover attorney fees.”). We also decline Raechel’s request for sanctions
against Nancy.

¶11 We do not address Nancy’s request for her court and travel
expenses, along with compensation for pain and suffering, public
humiliation, slander, and abuse, because she did not make the request in
her opening brief. See ARCAP 21(a)(1).

¶12 We deem Ted, Rebecca, Raechel, Robin, and Amanda the
successful parties. We award them their taxable costs on appeal under
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-341 upon their compliance with
ARCAP 21.

4
BAILEY, et al. v. BAILEY, et al.
Decision of the Court

CONCLUSION

¶13 We affirm.

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

5