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

• In a parentage/custody case, the Mother appealed the district court's findings, conclusions, and final order, raising multiple issues regarding the proceedings and decisions made by the district court over the custody of a child shared with the Father.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that the district court judge should have recused himself due to ex parte testimony, contested the imposition of filing restrictions, disputed the allowance of certain expenses by the Father as extraordinary, challenged the finding of her bipolar disorder diagnosis, objected to the finding that the child was not abused, and disagreed with the finding that the child feels responsible for the conflict between the parents.
• Father: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court judge erred in denying the Mother's motion for recusal.
• Whether the district court erred in imposing filing restrictions on the Mother.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing the Father to claim certain expenses as extraordinary.
• Whether the district court erred in finding that the Mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
• Whether the district court erred in finding that the child was not abused.
• Whether the district court erred in finding that the child feels responsible for the conflict between the parents.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions on all contested issues.

Reasons

• Judges Michael E. Vigil, Linda M. Vanzi, and Timothy L. Garcia: Concluded that the district court judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the Mother's motion for recusal as there was no evidence of bias or inability to hear the case fairly (paras 2-3). The imposition of filing restrictions was within the district court's discretion, given the history of vexatious litigation by both parties (paras 4-6). The Court found no error in the allowance of certain expenses as extraordinary by the district court, noting the Mother's failure to preserve this argument effectively (paras 7-8). The finding of the Mother's bipolar disorder diagnosis was upheld due to lack of clear error or deficiency, and it was deemed not essential to the district court's decision (paras 9-10). The Court affirmed the district court's finding that the child was not abused, based on CYFD's report and the lack of authority cited by the Mother to support her argument (para 11). Lastly, the Court upheld the finding that the child feels responsible for the conflict, dismissing the Mother's argument against the use of ex parte testimony as unsupported (para 12).