Young v. Young - Calendar

10:45am Thursday, February 7, 2008
20070293 Katherine Marie Young Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
James Charles Young Defendant and Appellant
Appeal from: East Central Judicial District, Cass County, Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:

Appellant: Pro se
Appellee: Melinda Hanson Weerts

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I.Whether the district court's failure to note that there was no schedule conflict for the drop off times, due to the child being picked up from school.
II.The court's failure to note that there is no schedule conflict on Sundays, due to no daycare on the weekends.
III.Whether the changes in the visitation was not in the best interest of the child, due to the changes interfering with the childs bedtime.
IV.Whether the court's failure to note that the child has not had any "wetting" accidents in over 5 months and that the child is picked on by the older brother at Katherine's home.
V.Whether the district court's failure to find Katherine young was not being credible, with proof from her own exhibits.
VI.Whether the district courts failure to find significant changes to warrant a change in visitation was clearly erroneous.
Reply Brief Issues
I. No schedule conflict for the drop off times, due to the child being picked up from school.
II. Wednesday visitation changes are interfering with the childs bedtime and not in the best interest of the child.
III. The court's dealing with Katherine's unknown degree and extent of psychological problems due to her "guardedness".
Iv. Court's failure to see Katherine contradicting herself with regards to the new revised visitation order.
V. The courts failure to take James's documented proof of the childs counselors true recommendations, over Katherines heresay representation.
VI. James's proof of Katherine being untruthful with the court went unchallenged, thereby validating James' arguments.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Are the District Court's Findings of Fact reasonably supported by the evidence, based upon proper interpretation of the law, and entitled to deference upon review?
2. Are the District Court's Credibility Determinations and Decisions relative to the weight of evidence entitled to deference upon review?
Briefs:
Case Summary
Appellant Brief
Appellee Brief
Reply Brief
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,^© a free download.

Go to Docket

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 02/29/2008