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 the appellant, Crystal Lynn Davis, challenging the district court's decisions regarding paternity, custody of minor children, supervised visitation for the non-custodial parent, and child support. The appellant sought a continuance for the final hearing on the merits, initially scheduled for February 22, 2011, due to having retained an attorney only four days prior and needing preparation time. Following a judge's recusal and reassignment of the case, the hearing was rescheduled. The appellant requested another continuance the day before the rescheduled hearing, citing an inability to attend due to restrictions from a probation hearing. The district court denied this request for a continuance.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court should have granted a continuance for the final hearing on the merits, considering the request as the first due to the initial continuance being a result of the judge's recusal. The appellant also contested the proper calculation of child support and the appropriateness of the venue.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's request for a continuance.
• Whether the venue for the case was proper in Lea County.
• Whether child support was calculated correctly.

Disposition

• The district court's decisions regarding paternity, custody, supervised visitation, and child support were affirmed.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (CYNTHIA A. FRY, J., MICHAEL E. VIGIL, J., concurring):
  The court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the continuance. The appellant benefited from the initial continuance due to the judge's recusal, and the request for a second continuance came too late and without proper notice to the appellee. The appellant did not provide a compelling reason for the late continuance request, nor did she seek permission to appear telephonically or request permission to travel for the hearing. The court also noted that the appellant had avenues for relief under Rules 1-055(C) and 1-060(B) if necessary.
  Regarding venue and child support calculation, the appellant did not provide arguments against the district court's decisions. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court on these issues based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition.