requested a review of child support in his petition for modification of child custody. The Court notes that this case is an open and active IV-D case. The parties are notified that this Court may refer the issue of child support to the IV-D Commissioner if, in fact, parenting time and/or child custody is modified by this Court. The State waived its appearance at hearings in the case, noting they involved child custody and/or parenting time. 5 . Mother does not clearly identify or properly develop any challenge to parenting time orders or the appointment of a parenting coordinator. She has thus waived any such claims on appeal. See State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 452 n. 9, ¶ 101, 94 P.3d 1119, 1147 n. 9 (2004); Higgins v. Higgins, 194 Ariz. 266, 270, ¶ 12, 981 P.2d 134, 138 (App.1999)
holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988 holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action holding a pro per litigant to the same standard as an attorney holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance recognizing that although pro se litigant is generally held to same standards as party represented by attorney a court may consider pro se status when deciding whether partys conduct was result of conscious indifference because this determination turns on his state of mind