Dunn v. Dunn
v.
Michelle Dye Dunn, Defendant and Appellant
Judge Allan L. Schmalenberger
| Appellant: | Dann Edward Greenwood | |
| Appellee: | Sandra Kay Kuntz | |
| Appellee: | Bethany Joy Abrams |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Whether the Trial Court erred in finding a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change of custody.
1. Michelle Dunn argues that the Trial Court was clearly erroneous in its determination that a substantial change of circumstances, sufficient to warrant a change of custody, occurred. Michelle Dunn argues that the Trial Court's finding that a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a change of custody occurred was induced by an erroneous view of the law and/or that no evidence existed to support the finding.
2. More particularly stated, Michelle Dunn argues that the Trial Court erred in: 1) its conclusion that Garry Dunn's intention to relocate to regardless of the Court's ruling on the motion to relocate, standing alone, constituted a substantial change of circumstances warranting a change in custody, and 2) in its conclusion that there was a substantial change of circumstances requiring a change in custody without finding that the change "adversely impacted" the children or articulating a finding which explained what it was that "compelled" or "required" a modification, or made modification "necessary", or where there no evidence exists to support such a finding,
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A. Whether the District Court was right in finding a material change in circumstances as required by North Dakota law.
B. Whether the District Curt was correct in finding that the change in circumstances compelled a change in custody to serve the best interests of the children under North Dakota law.
C. Whether the District Court accurately found that it was in the children's best interest to relocate, under the Stout-Hawkinson factors.
Add Docket 20090127 RSS