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 a dispute between the Petitioner-Appellee (Mother) and the Respondent-Appellant (Father) over child support arrears. The Father appealed against the district court's order awarding child support arrears to the Mother, challenging the consideration of the Child Support Enforcement Division’s (CSED) records of his prior child support payments and the calculation of interest rates on the judgment, among other issues.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that the Child Support Hearing Officer (CSHO) should not have considered CSED's records of his prior child support payments at the hearing, as CSED was removed as a party to the case in 2009. He also contended that the CSED audits did not reflect all payments made to the Mother prior to 2006, claimed the hearing officer was biased, argued against the calculation of interest rates on the judgment, and asserted that the Mother committed perjury during the proceedings (paras 2-4, 7, 9-10).
• Petitioner-Appellee (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Child Support Hearing Officer (CSHO) should have considered the Child Support Enforcement Division’s (CSED) records of the Father's prior child support payments.
• Whether the CSHO was biased in its handling of the case.
• Whether the interest rates applied to the judgment were correctly calculated.
• Whether the Mother committed perjury during the proceedings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order awarding child support arrears to the Mother (para 1).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Roderick Kennedy, Chief Judge, and Linda M. Vanzi, Judge concurring:
  The court found that the district court's 2006 order did not direct CSED to destroy its records, and thus, the CSED audits could be used as evidence of child support payments made by the Father to the Mother (para 2).
  The court noted that the record indicated the CSHO considered Father’s evidence of payments made and credited him for that amount, emphasizing that on appeal, evidence is not reweighed (para 3).
  The court rejected the Father's claim of bias by the CSHO, noting this issue was not preserved for appeal as required by procedural rules (para 4).
  The court found no error in the CSHO's decision to exclude certain evidence, as the Father did not clearly specify the error or the evidence he sought to introduce (para 5).
  The court upheld the district court's findings regarding the children's residence and past child support payments, which were not to be reconsidered by the CSHO (para 6).
  The court explained the application of statutory interest rates on post-judgment interest at the time the child support payments became due, finding no error in the interest rates assessed (para 7-8).
  The court dismissed the Father's argument regarding the statute of limitations and the award of retroactive child support, noting the CSHO did not award retroactive child support beyond twelve years (para 9).
  The court declined to reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, including the claim of perjury by the Mother, stating that these are matters for the trier of facts (para 10).