Full Opinion

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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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: RACHEL HEFLIN, Petitioner/Appellee, v. CODY HEFLIN, Respondent/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 26-0282 FC FILED 11-13-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2023-004402 The Honorable Ashley V. Halvorson, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Gallagher & Kennedy, P A, Phoenix By Melissa F. Benson, Josefa A. Rodriguez, Kyle B. James Counsel for Petitioner/Appellee Cody Heflin, Gilbert Respondent/Appellant HEFLIN v. HEFLIN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 This is an appeal from an order modifying parenting time and child support. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶2 Cody Heflin (“Father”) and Rachel Heflin (“Mother”) married in 2018 and had children in 2020 and 2022. In January 2025, they divorced under a decree of dissolution that established equal parenting time and required Father to pay child support. In February 2026, the court issued an order reducing Father’s parenting time to every other weekend and increasing his child support obligation. ¶3 Father timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1). ¶4 By his reply brief, Father withdrew all but one of the arguments set forth in his opening brief, stated that he no longer seeks relief as to the remaining argument, and concluded that he “does not ask this Court to vacate or remand the February [] 2026 Order.” We do not address withdrawn issues. See Hrudka v. Hrudka, 186 Ariz. 84, 88 n.1 (App. 1995). And Father’s appeal is moot. See Sedona Priv. Prop. Owners Ass’n v. City of Sedona, 192 Ariz. 126, 127, ¶ 5 (App. 1998) (citation omitted) (“A case becomes moot when . . . the outcome of the appeal [would] have no practical effect on the parties.”). ¶5 Mother requests attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. §§ 12-349 and 25-324. Considering the relevant factors, we decline Mother’s request for attorneys’ fees. See A.R.S. §§ 12-349, 25-324. But we award Mother her taxable costs on appeal upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21. ¶6 We affirm. MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR 2