Frueh v. Frueh
Darin G. Frueh, Plaintiff and Appellant
Melissa A. Frueh, n/k/a
Melissa Hoheisel, Defendant and Appellee
South Central Judicial District,
Judge Robert O. Wefald
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||12/2007  Argument: 12/17/2007 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2008 ND 26|
745 N.W.2d 362
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Is it error for a trial court to deny an evidentiary hearing wherein:
a. The child who is almost 13 has requested the change of custody.
b. The child has alleged that the mother's new husband abused him.
c. The mother has remarried and the child and new husband are not compatible.
2. If the original custody arrangement was by stipulation of the parties, and the non-custodial parent moves to change custody, is the trial court, in deciding whether or not to grant an evidentiary hearing required to review the entire file and the facts about the parties when addressing the best interests of the child, or is the trial court limited to only those events that occurred since the divorce?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing when it determined that the allegations of abuse by the moving party were sufficiently rebutted and lacked credibility.
2.Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing when the moving party failed to show that a twelve-year-old child's preference was reasonable.
3.Whether the remarriage of a custodial parent is enough to warrant an evidentiary hearing in a motion for change of custody.
4.Whether a trial court is obligated to review the entire file in a stipulated divorce and any new facts when determining whether or not to grant an evidentiary hearing in a motion for modification of custody.
|Add Docket 20070254 RSS|
|1||08/29/2007||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 08/27/2007|
|2||09/26/2007||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|3||09/26/2007||ACTION BY CLERK (MAT). Granted: 10/16/2007|
|4||09/28/2007||RECORD ON APPEAL (with separate entry 103(report)); not received entries 95, 98, 99, 100 which were|
|5||09/28/2007||entry 102 appears to have been also docketed as 104|
|8||10/15/2007||DISK - ATB|
|9||11/12/2007||APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|10||11/12/2007||E-FILED BRIEF (AEB)|
|11||11/12/2007||APPELLEE APPENDIX (faxed)|
|12||11/12/2007||E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA) Faxed|
|13||11/15/2007||Received $25 surcharge for AEB (Receipt #17911)|
|14||11/20/2007||Received 7 copies of AEB from Central Duplicating.|
|15||11/20/2007||Received 6 copies of AEA from Central Duplicating.|
|16||12/17/2007||APPEARANCES: Michael S. McIntee; Rebecca C. Graves|
|17||12/17/2007||ARGUED: McIntee; Graves|
|18||12/17/2007||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|19||02/21/2008||DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED|
|20||02/21/2008||SPLIT OPINION: sandstrom: Sandstrom, Dale V.|
|21||02/21/2008||(Specially concurring in the result): Maring, Mary Muehlen: CONCUR|
|22||02/21/2008||(Concurring in the result): Kapsner, Carol Ronning: CONCUR|
|23||02/21/2008||(JOIN CONCUR): Crothers, Daniel John: JN/CON|
|24||02/21/2008||Costs on Appeal taxed in favor of appellant|
|25||02/22/2008||Judgment E-Mailed to Parties|
|27||03/19/2008||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|