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 Father (Petitioner-Appellant) and the Mother (Respondent-Appellee) regarding the Mother's ability to temporarily take their Child out of the country for a visit to relatives. Additionally, the case concerns restrictions on the parties' communications with each other and the manner in which they serve pleadings on each other (para 1).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Jane Shuler Gray, District Judge, December 22, 2016: The district court issued orders concerning the Mother's ability to take the Child out of the country temporarily, and placed restrictions on the parties' communications and the manner of serving pleadings on each other.

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Appealed the district court's orders regarding the Mother's temporary travel with the Child out of the country, and the restrictions on communications and service of pleadings between the parties (para 1).
• Mother: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's orders concerning the Mother's ability to temporarily take the Child out of the country, and the restrictions on the parties' communications and service of pleadings, were appropriate.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals dismissed in part for mootness and affirmed in part the district court's orders as discussed in the notice of proposed summary disposition (para 1).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and M. MONICA ZAMORA, J., concurring): The decision to dismiss in part and affirm in part was based on the Father's failure to timely file a memorandum in opposition and his apparent wish to no longer pursue the appeal, as indicated by his "request for leave from appeal" being interpreted as a request for voluntary dismissal of the appeal (para 1).