AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a kinship guardianship matter concerning minor children Neveah L. and Reyna T.L. Carolina Telles and Henry Telles, the petitioners, sought to maintain their guardianship status against Samuel M. Lara, the respondent-appellant, who is also a self-represented litigant. Samuel M. Lara appealed the district court's decision denying his request for visitation rights and his motion for the recusal of the judge.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the denial of his request for visitation was not in the best interests of the child, asserting that unsupervised visits would benefit the child by improving self-esteem, providing peace of mind, and allowing the child to be seen by peers as having two parents. He also claimed that such visitation would result in less anxiety for the child and mentioned a new iPhone as a gift from him. Additionally, he asserted bias against him by the current Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), the past GAL, and the current judge, and argued for a change of venue due to this perceived bias. He further argued that the GAL should have been removed due to a conflict of interest, citing breaches of email confidentiality and attorney-client privilege, and a personal conflict stemming from a previous GAL's estate matters.
• Petitioners-Appellees: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the respondent-appellant's request for visitation.
• Whether there was bias against the respondent-appellant by the Guardian Ad Litem, the past Guardian Ad Litem, and the judge, warranting a recusal or change of venue.
• Whether the Guardian Ad Litem had a conflict of interest that should have led to their removal from the case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the respondent-appellant's request for visitation and his motion for recusal.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Megan P. Duffy, found that the respondent-appellant failed to provide new facts or authority relevant to the case and issues raised on appeal. The Court noted that vague assertions and speculation were insufficient to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion regarding the denial of visitation rights. The Court also found no merit in the respondent-appellant's claims of bias and conflict of interest against the GAL, citing a lack of factual support from the record. The Court emphasized that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate error on the part of the trial court, and in this case, the respondent-appellant failed to meet this burden. The decision to affirm was based on the respondent-appellant's repetition of earlier arguments without pointing out specific errors of law or fact, making unsupported assertions of bias and conflict of interest, and relying on matters outside the record (paras 1-8).