| 2:45pm | Wednesday, February 20, 2013 | ||||||
| 20120329 |
Shannon R. Dieterle, Plaintiff and Appellee
v. Angela L. Dieterle, Defendant and Appellant | ||||||
| Appeal from: | South Central Judicial District, Sheridan County, Judge Donald L. Jorgensen, 42-2011-DM-00021 | ||||||
| Nature of Action: | Child Cust & Support (Div.\other) | ||||||
| Counsel: |
| ||||||
| Issues: |
Appellant's Statement of the Issues: Issue 1: The district court failed to apply the best interest factors, failed to make sufficient or proper findings as to any of the best interest factors, and failed to make proper findings of fact in regards to the domestic violence committed by Shannon against Angie and the child, which were described through the testimony of Angie and her two other daughters, totally disregarding the testimony in one sentence where the district court found both the mother and her older twin daughters "not credible." Issue 2: The district erred in awarding primarily residential responsibility to Shannon. Issue 3: The district court has improperly delegated its decision as to the issuance and content of the parenting plan to a parenting coordinator. Issue 4: The district court, in awarding property, has made numerous and obvious mistakes, and failed to take into account the parties differences in income, Shannon's insistence that Angie quit her job, and both parties testimony that Angie should be allowed to remain on the ranch. Issue 5: The district court, in awarding spousal support, failed to take into account Angie quitting her job at the insistence of Shannon; moreover, the district court should have awarded Angie substantially more in spousal support given the difference in income of the parties and the stated desire of both parties for Angie to be able to stay on the ranch. Issue 6: In the event of a remand, the district court should not continue on the case due to the district court's demonstrated bias against Angie as shown by the district court's explicitly declaring Angie to have no credibility, ignoring any countervailing evidence (even that submitted by the custody investigator), issuing factual findings that are absolutely incorrect or not supported by the evidence received, and failing to look at the evidence fairly and objectively. | ||||||
| Briefs: |
| ||||||
Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 02/28/2013 | |||||||