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 the modification of a pre-existing custody order dated December 9, 2009, which granted the Father sole legal and physical custody of their child, with visitation rights to the Mother and Grandparents. The Father sought to terminate all visitation rights based on alleged conduct by the Mother and Grandparents. The parties have a history of making accusations against each other.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court erred by not allowing the child's therapist to testify at the hearing to modify the custody order. He sought to terminate all visitation rights for the Mother and Grandparents based on their alleged conduct.
• Petitioner-Appellee (Mother): Filed a response to the Respondent's supplement to the memorandum and a motion to strike Respondent’s supplement to the memorandum, arguing against the modification of the custody order and the termination of her visitation rights.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in refusing to permit the child's therapist from testifying at the hearing to modify the pre-existing custody order.
• Whether the denial of the motion to modify the custody order on the merits was justified.
• Whether the Respondent was denied due process in the proceedings to modify the custody order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the motion to modify the pre-existing custody order.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, Jonathan B. Sutin, and Timothy L. Garcia, provided several reasons for affirming the district court's decision:
  Regarding the therapist's testimony: The Court concluded that it was speculative that additional therapist testimony would have established a material and substantive change in circumstances. The district court had the discretion to limit the hearing to a consideration of the Respondent's credibility and defer to the court-appointed expert for oversight of the child's behavioral status.
  On the merits of the motion: The Court deferred to the district court's determination that the ongoing hostility between the parties was not a change in circumstances warranting modification of the custody order but rather necessitated an order to cease the bad-mouthing between the parties.
  Concerning due process: The Court found that the Respondent was not denied due process with respect to his motion to modify the custody order, noting that any challenges to previous orders should have been raised at the time those orders were appealable.
  The Court's analysis and conclusions were based on the record and the applicable legal principles, leading to the affirmation of the district court's order.