Miller v. Miller
Leslie Wade Miller, Plaintiff and Appellant
Jenny Lynn Miller, n/k/a Jenny Sailer, Defendant and Appellee
South Central Judicial District,
Judge David E. Reich
|Nature of Action:||Child Cust & Support (Div.\other)|
|Term:||04/2013  Argument: 04/02/2013 10:45am|
|ND cite:||2013 ND 103|
832 N.W.2d 327
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
Issue 1: The district court erred in failing to find a prima facia case in a situation in which:
A) the district court's total analysis consisted of only one-fact (the fifteen-year-old was not of sufficient maturity to provide a preference) in its one-sentence conclusory finding, despite the substantial factual allegations contained in the affidavits submitted by the movant and his son;
B) the district court apparently adopted the affidavits of the opposing parent whole-cloth through a one-sentence conclusory finding which ignored all other allegations made by the movant;
C) the district court erred in ruling that a prima facia case was not warranted by issuing a one-sentence conclusory finding and ignoring all other allegations made and based solely on a finding that the fifteen-year-old son did not have sufficient maturity to provide a preference that would constitute a prima facia case.
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
A) Should a denial of a motion to modify primary responsibility be reversed if the bulk of evidence produced is either not competent or based upon firsthand knowledge, was previously submitted, or is clearly and facially inaccurate?
B) Does a two-month trial period constitute a de facto change of primary residential responsibility such that, as a matter of law, trial court's denial of the motion to change primary residential responsibility must be reversed?
C) Must appropriate, lawful parental guidance for a troubled child require a reversal of the trial court?
D) Can the perception of the non-primary parent that his child has inadequate clothing at his house and that the primary parent insufficiently included him in the decision-making create a mandate for an evidentiary hearing for change of primary residential responsibility?
E) Does a simple assertion of slight improvement without specifics constitute a material change of circumstance?
F) Was the minor child of sufficient maturity and sound judgment for his preference to require an evidentiary hearing?
|Add Docket 20120424 RSS|
|1||12/06/2012||NOTICE OF APPEAL: 12/03/2012|
|2||12/13/2012||Received $125 filing fee (Receipt #21615)|
|3||01/02/2013||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED DECEMBER 31, 2012 (ENTRY NOS.1-95)|
|4||01/10/2013||MOT. EXT/TIME APPELLANT BRIEF|
|6||01/10/2013||ACTION BY CLERK. Granted: 02/02/2013|
|7||02/02/2013||APPELLANT BRIEF (PDF)|
|8||02/02/2013||E-FILED BRIEF (PDF)|
|11||02/22/2013||Rcv'd $25 surcharge for ATB (Receipt #21710)|
|12||02/08/2013||Rcv'd nonsubstantive corrections to atb & ata (added n/k/a)|
|14||02/27/2013||Rcv'd 7 copies of ATB from CSD|
|15||02/27/2013||Rcv'd 6 copies of ATA from CSD|
|16||03/07/2013||Received the $25 surcharge for the aeb|
|21||03/08/2013||Rec'd non-substantive changes to the title pages of ATB & ATA|
|22||03/13/2013||We rec'd 7 copies of the aeb & 6 copies of the aea from CSD|
|23||03/18/2013||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|24||04/02/2013||APPEARANCES: Lynn M. Boughey; Sherry Mills Moore|
|25||04/02/2013||ARGUED: Lynn M. Boughey; Sherry Mills Moore|
|26||04/02/2013||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|28||06/19/2013||UNANIMOUS OPINION: Kapsner, Carol Ronning|
|29||06/19/2013||Costs on appeal taxed in favor of Appellee|
|30||06/20/2013||Judgment Sent to Parties|