AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves an appeal by Melanie Blythe Greenham against an order granting her protection from her ex-husband, Santiago Greenham-Rodriguez. The district court limited the protective order's applicability to contact between the petitioner and the respondent, while child-related custody matters were to be addressed in their divorce case.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erroneously treated inter-parental contact as a child custody matter and contended that the court could not transfer determinations regarding necessary contact between parents seeking to perform the custody agreement to the divorce case.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in limiting the protective order’s applicability to contact between Petitioner and Respondent while transferring child-related custody matters to the divorce case.
• Whether the district court erred in treating inter-parental contact as a child custody matter.
• Whether the district court's transfer of custody matters to the divorce case was erroneous due to the judge in the divorce case being peremptorily excused from this case.
• Whether the district court erred in extending the order of protection for one year instead of for the Petitioner’s lifetime.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, maintaining the district court's decision on the protective order and the handling of child-related custody matters.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge, ATTREP, Chief Judge, and MEDINA, Judge, concurring: The Court found the petitioner's arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the district court's decision. The distinction between "contact between the adult parties" and child custody matters, as argued by the petitioner, does not exist in the statute. The trial court is responsible for considering and defining the types of permissible contact between parents in custody determinations, including communication relevant to the child's needs (para 3). The Court also dismissed the petitioner's concern regarding the transfer of custody matters to the divorce case due to the judge being peremptorily excused, noting the lack of authority supporting the argument that a judge excused from one case loses jurisdiction in a separate case (para 4). Additionally, the Court addressed the petitioner's acceptance of the protective order's duration being set for one year, noting no further arguments were presented on this issue (para 5).