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 custody dispute between the parents of two children. The children exhibited serious psychological and emotional difficulties, leading to disputes over custody. The father was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children, while the mother sought to modify the custody arrangement, citing various reasons, including her completion of a co-parenting course and unsupervised visits with the children. The mother later filed a motion for relief from judgment, arguing procedural and evidentiary errors in the custody determination.
Procedural History
- District Court, February 13, 2006: Entered a judgment and final decree of dissolution of marriage, reserving jurisdiction over custody matters pending a custody evaluation.
- District Court, July 9, 2007: Granted the father sole legal and physical custody of the children. The mother did not appeal this order.
- District Court, May 18, 2009: Modified custody by adopting the guardian ad litem’s recommendations, again awarding the father sole custody. The mother did not appeal this order.
- District Court, July 28, 2009: Denied the mother’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the district court failed to consider all evidence, did not address her concerns about the guardian ad litem, and improperly admitted certain testimony. She also claimed procedural errors and newly discovered evidence warranted relief from judgment.
- Appellee (Father): Asserted that the mother’s motion for relief from judgment was untimely and did not meet the requirements under Rule 1-060(B). He maintained that the custody orders were final and properly issued.
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in denying the mother’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1-060(B).
- Whether the mother’s claims of procedural and evidentiary errors in the custody determination were properly before the appellate court.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the mother’s motion for relief from judgment.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Fry CJ and Robles J. concurring):
The court held that the mother’s appeal was limited to the denial of her Rule 1-060(B) motion and could not address the merits of the underlying custody orders, as those orders were final and not timely appealed. The court found that the mother’s motion did not establish grounds for relief under Rule 1-060(B)(1) or (B)(2), as her arguments and evidence could have been raised earlier. The court also rejected the mother’s procedural arguments, noting that the custody orders were final despite her claims of unaddressed issues. The mother’s motion to amend the docketing statement and her motion to modify child support were also denied, as they did not present viable issues for appeal.