Andrew R. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security

¶ 26 I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the time limit of Rule 60(c)(3) has been incorporated into AR.S. § 25-812(E) (“the Statute”) and thereby time-bars Mother’s motion to challenge the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity. I do so for four reasons.

¶ 27 First, our primary task in interpreting a statute “is to determine and give effect to the legislature’s intent, and the first place to look is the wording of the statute.” In re Adam P., 201 Ariz. 289, 291, ¶ 12, 34 P.3d 398, 400 (App.2001) (quoting Tobel v. State, Arizona Dept. of Pub. Safety, 189 Ariz. 168, 174,…