Young v. Young
Katherine Marie Young Plaintiff and Appellee
James Charles Young Defendant and Appellant
East Central Judicial District,
Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||02/2008  Argument: 02/07/2008 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2008 ND 55|
746 N.W.2d 153
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
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?
|Add Docket 20070293 RSS|
|1||10/04/2007||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 10/03/2007|
|2||11/06/2007||RECORD ON APPEAL - includes separates 20 (affidavit) & 50 (tra of deposition dtd 1-27-06),|
|3||11/06/2007||not received were entry numbers 8,38, & 49 (steno tapes).|
|7||11/09/2007||Received 1 copy of Appellant's Appendix|
|8||11/27/2007||MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL, AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPPORT & BRIEF IN SUPPORT. RspDue: 12/10/2007|
|9||11/27/2007||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLEE BRIEF (included in Motion to Dismiss)|
|10||11/29/2007||Response Filed to Motion to Dismiss, Affidavit and Brief in Support with Aff. of Mailing|
|11||11/29/2007||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (MAE). Granted: 12/31/2007|
|12||11/29/2007||ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot Dismiss). Denied|
|13||12/13/2007||Clerk's Supplemental Certificate of Record dated December 12, 2007 (Entry Nos. 96-105).|
|14||12/19/2007||Clerk's Supplemental Certificate of Record dated 12-18-07 (Entry Nos. 106-111)|
|17||12/28/2007||DISK - AEB|
|18||12/31/2007||Clerk's Third Supplemental Certificate of Record dated 12-27-07 (Entry Nos. 112 & 113)|
|20||01/16/2008||Affidavit of Service of RYB on Ms. Weerts|
|21||01/16/2008||DISK - RYB (CD-ROM)|
|22||02/07/2008||APPEARANCES: James Charles Young; Melinda Hanson Weerts, Katherine Marie Young|
|23||02/07/2008||ARGUED: James Charles Young; Weerts|
|24||02/07/2008||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|26||03/20/2008||SPLIT OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John|
|27||03/20/2008||(CONCURRING AND DISSENTING): VandeWalle, Gerald W.: CON/DIS|
|28||03/20/2008||(CONCURRING AND DISSENTING/JOIN): Sandstrom, Dale V.: CON/DIS|
|29||03/20/2008||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of appellee|
|30||03/24/2008||Judgment E-Mailed to Parties|
|31||03/26/2008||PETITION FOR REHEARING|
|32||03/27/2008||Affidavit of Service of PER|
|33||03/27/2008||DISK - PER (CDROM)|
|34||04/17/2008||ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (PER). Denied|
|36||05/06/2008||RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|