A recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals has upheld an order preventing a woman from having contact with her grandson after allegations surfaced that she caused him physical harm. The ruling addresses concerns about child safety and clarifies the legal standards for issuing and maintaining orders of protection in cases involving family members.
The case began when Symone Perris Stewart filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court against Denise Floyd, seeking an order of protection on behalf of her two-year-old son, A.F., following an incident in July 2025. According to the filing, Stewart alleged that Floyd, who is A.F.’s grandmother, injured the child’s arm while he was under her care. Stewart’s stepdaughter reported witnessing Floyd “yank[ing] [A.F.’s] arm” and subsequently “pull[ing] him” up “from the ground by the same arm” after he fell or threw himself on the floor.
After learning about the incident, A.F.’s father took him to the emergency room where doctors diagnosed him with a dislocated elbow, specifically radial head subluxation or “nursemaid’s elbow.” Medical records indicated this type of injury typically occurs when a child’s arm is pulled or lifted forcefully. Stewart recounted that medical staff told her the injury was consistent with being “pulled or yanked with a certain amount of force.” When confronted, Floyd denied pulling A.F.’s arm and claimed he had hurt himself during a tantrum by throwing himself onto the floor.
Stewart petitioned for an ex parte order of protection (OOP), which was granted by the court without prior notice to Floyd. In response, Floyd requested an evidentiary hearing to contest the OOP. During this hearing held on August 25, 2025—ten business days after her request—testimony was provided by Stewart, Floyd herself, and A.F.’s father. Documentary evidence included A.F.’s emergency room discharge papers describing how such injuries often result from lifting or pulling a child by one or both arms.
At the conclusion of this hearing, the court determined by a preponderance of evidence that Floyd “may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of domestic violence within the last year,” leading to continuation of the OOP against her. Floyd appealed this decision to Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals (Case No. 1 CA-CV 25-0788 FC), arguing that she had been denied due process because she was not given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard before issuance of the initial OOP.
In its memorandum decision filed April 13, 2026, Presiding Judge Daniel J. Kiley explained that Arizona law allows courts to issue protective orders ex parte but also guarantees respondents prompt hearings upon request. The record showed that Floyd received such a hearing within ten business days as required by statute and rule. The appellate court noted: “Due process ‘entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,’” citing Solorzano v. Jensen.
Floyd further argued there was insufficient evidence supporting claims she caused A.F.’s injury and pointed out alleged inconsistencies in Stewart’s account as well as previous similar injuries suffered by A.F. However, because no transcript from either hearing was provided on appeal—a responsibility assigned to appellants—the appellate judges presumed any missing information would support lower court findings: “In the absence of a transcript, an appellate court will presume that the record supports the trial court’s rulings.”
Ultimately, Judges D. Steven Williams and Cynthia J. Bailey joined Judge Kiley in affirming continuation of the protective order against Floyd based on both procedural grounds and substantive evidence presented at trial.
The attorneys named in this case include Denise Floyd representing herself as appellant; no other attorney names are listed in this document. The case identification number is 1 CA-CV 25-0788 FC.
Source: 1CACV250788_Stewart_v_Floyd_Opinion_Arizona_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
