Helfenstein v. Schutt
v.
Jacqueline Schutt, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Donald L. Jorgensen
| Appellant: | Loren Cay McCray | |
| Appellee: | Susan Schmidt Law Office |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
Was the trial court's decision to mandate supervised visitation for a period of two years clearly erroneous?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by considering in its decision post hearing letters from the children's therapists without allowing Jacqueline Schutt to cross examine those therapists?
Did the trial court improperly delegate its decision making authority to therapists with respect to visitation?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.Did the Court properly deny a motion filed with no affidavits or other evidence presented to demonstrate to the Court that the motion was meritorious?
II.Was appeal of the Order dated August 16, 2006, perfected, and therefore properly before the Court, by the Notice of Appeal dated December 27, 2006?
III.If the Order of August 16, 2006, is properly before the Court, was it error for the Court to reiterate the previous order for supervised visitation with the change from a permanent order to an order for two years?
IV.If the Order of August 16, 2006, is properly before the Court, was it error for the Court to deny the Defendant's request for family therapy when she had failed to bring the necessary evidence before the Court and the Court determined a review of records to determine the appropriateness of family therapy would be a fruitless effort?
V.Was the order for a minimal payment of attorney fees appropriate when the Court determined the motion to be without merit and the Court had examined the Defendant's income and expenses about six weeks prior to the Defendant's motion?
Add Docket 20060383 RSS