| 9:05am | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 | ||||||
| 20060332 |
Heidi Lee Niemann, n/k/a
Heidi Lee Wolf, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Lyle Thomas Niemann, Defendant and Appellant | ||||||
| Appeal from: | Northeast Judicial District, Walsh County, Judge Lee A. Christofferson | ||||||
| Nature of Action: | Child Cust & Support (Div.\other) | ||||||
| Counsel: |
| ||||||
| Issues: |
Appellant's Statement of the Issues: 1. Whether the district court's failure to find a significant change of circumstances was clearly erroneous. 2. Whether the lower court abused it's discretion in limiting the parties' cases to two hours Reply Brief Issues 1. Whether a "material change of circumstances" exists is to be measured from the date of the last modification. 2. The Appellee's supplementation of the Appendix is not permitted under rule 30(b) N.D.R.App.P. Appellee's Statement of the Issues: I.The trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding Lyle failed to show a material change of circumstances for a modification of the existing custodial arrangement. A.The material change of circumstances should come from facts that were not known at the time Lyle brought his motion for change of custody in 2001. B.L.T.'s present environment with Heidi is not a harm to his physical or emotional health and the present environment is not an impairment to his emotional development. C.Heidi has not relinquished her role as L.T.'s primary caregiver. D.Neither party's marriage is a significant change in circumstances. E.Heidi has had no significant decline in her health since Lyle brought his 2001 motion. F.Victoria's preference is not a significant change in circumstances as it relates to L.T.'s custody. G.There has been no change in L.T.'s educational circumstances since 2001 that create a material change in circumstances. H.Victoria and L.T. each living with a separate parent is not a material change in circumstances relating to L.T.'s custody. I.The trial court properly examined the topics Lyle alleged to constitute a material change in circumstances. J.The evidence in the record is sufficient to deny Lyle's motion even under an analysis of the best interest of the child factors. XI.The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it limited the parties to two hours to present evidene. | ||||||
| Briefs: |
| ||||||
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 11/07/2007 | |||||||