Prchal v. Prchal

20100128 Sara Renae Prchal (n/k/a
Sara Renae Gerdon), Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Bradley Lawrence Prchal, Defendant and Appellant

Appeal from: District Court, Southeast Judicial District, Richland County
Judge Daniel D. Narum
Nature of Action: Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)
Counsel:
Appellant: Jonathan T. Garaas
Appellee: Janel Brudvik Fredericksen
Term: 10/2010   Argument: 10/05/2010  1:30pm
ND cite: 2011 ND 62
NW cite: 795 N.W.2d 693

Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format

Issues: Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
1.Did the District Court Judge abuse his discretion when he failed to find Sara Renae Prchal, now known as Sara Renae Gerdon, in contempt when there was clear evidence she had denied Bradley Prchal, without reason, fourteen (14) weekends of custodial visitation and eight (8) Wednesday evening visitations?
2.Does Sara Renae Gerdon, the parent with the primary residential responsibility, have the right to seek modification of the other parent's parenting rights under N.D.C.C.  14-05-22(2)?
3.Did the District Court err in modifying an existing visitation order when Sara Renae Gerdon had failed to prove a material change of circumstances and that the change was in the best interests of the children?
4.Did the District Court err when it imposed a parenting coordinator upon the parents?
5.Did the District Court err when it mandated parents undergo counseling and treatment?

Reply Brief Issues
Without expressing dissatisfaction with the issues presented by Brad Lawrence Prchal ["PRCHAL"], Sara Renae Gerdon ["GERDON"] sets forth different issue(s), some similar to PRCHAL'S, as if also aggrieved and appealing from the decision of the lower court. N.D.R.App.P. 28(c).

Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to find Appellee in contempt? Trial court held: The trial court found the Appellant did not meet his burden to establish that the Appellee was in contempt. The trial court found that the Appellee had not intentionally tried to frustrate Appellant's parenting time or deviate from or ignore the court's order.
II. Whether the trial court erred in amending the existing order upon the motion of the primary residential parent? Trial court held: The trial court found that there had been material change of circumstances based on the children's increased demands relating to their extra-curricular activities and the ongoing conflict between the parties regarding the parenting time schedule. The trial court modified the parties' parenting time schedule upon the motion of the primary residential parent. The trial court found it was in the best interests of the children to modify the existing order.
III. Whether the trial court erred when it ordered the parties to participate in Co-Parenting counseling? Trial court held: The trial court found that the conflict between the parties was undermining the relationships between the children and the parties. The trial court found it was in the best interests of the children that the parties participate in Co-Parenting counseling.
IV. Whether the trial court erred in appointing a Parenting Coordinator? Trial court held: The trial court found that the parties were in dire need of a Parenting Coordinator due to the high conflict between the parties.

Add Docket 20100128 RSS Add Docket 20100128 RSS

Docket entries:
105/06/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 05/03/2010
205/07/2010 ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT: 05/03/2010
306/01/2010 TRANSCRIPTS DATED 12/21/09 & 1/21/10 & C.O.S.
406/01/2010 DISK-TRA (12/21/09 & 1/21/10) E-MAILED
506/07/2010 Electronic RECORD ON APPEAL (Entry nos. 1 - 109)
607/12/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF
707/12/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX
807/12/2010 DISK (ATB) e-mailed
908/09/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF
1008/09/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX
1108/09/2010 DISK - AEB (e-mailed)
1208/23/2010 REPLY BRIEF, with attached Addendum, of Appellant
1308/27/2010 DISK - RYB
1409/20/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT
1510/05/2010 APPEARANCES: Johnathan T. Garaas; Janel Brudvik Fredericken
1610/05/2010 ARGUED: Johnathan T. Garaas; Janel Brudvik Fredericken
1710/05/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST
1803/22/2011 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED
1903/22/2011 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Crothers, Daniel John
2003/22/2011 Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee.
2103/24/2011 Judgment Sent to Parties
2204/15/2011 MANDATE
2304/19/2011 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE

Generated from Supreme Court Docket on 10/22/2014