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 father's appeal against a district court's order concerning the modification of custody and time-sharing arrangements for his child. The father argued that the court did not conduct a timely hearing on his motion to modify custody and time-sharing. He contended that the delay affected the court's consideration of the child's wishes regarding custody and visitation, as the child had aged during the delay. The father also raised concerns about the weight given to the child's wishes in the court's decision and the impact of the child's school-related activities on his visitation time.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the district court did not hear his motion to modify custody and time-sharing in a timely manner, which affected the consideration of the child's wishes due to the child's age at the time of the hearing. He also contended that the court gave too much weight to the child's wishes and did not adequately consider his concerns about school-related activities cutting into his visitation time.
• Mother: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by not conducting a timely hearing on the father's motion to modify custody and time-sharing.
• Whether the district court gave undue weight to the child's wishes in its decision on custody and visitation.
• Whether the district court properly considered the impact of the child's school-related activities on the father's visitation time.

Disposition

• The district court's decision concerning the modification of custody and time-sharing was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion and Judges James J. Wechsler and Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, found no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of the case. The court addressed the father's concerns as follows:
  Timeliness of Hearing: The court noted that it was the father's responsibility to ensure a timely hearing by properly requesting one and alerting the replacement judge to his pending motions after a change of judge assignment. The court found that even assuming the district court erred in delaying the hearing, this would not entitle the father to a different result, as the district court made its decision based on present conditions and circumstances (paras 2-3).
  Weight Given to Child's Wishes: The court pointed out that the district court was required by statute to consider the child's wishes, regardless of the child's age, and that the court had discretion to evaluate the child's maturity and the validity of her concerns. The court found no abuse of discretion in how the district court considered the child's wishes (para 4).
  School-Related Activities: The court noted that the father did not appear to have brought his concerns about the child's school-related activities cutting into his visitation time to the district court's attention. The court stated that it would not reverse the district court on issues not presented to it and that the value of such activities to the child's development and well-being was within the district court's discretion to consider (para 5).