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 revolves around a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent regarding child support issues, specifically the retroactive payment of child support to a period before the Respondent filed a petition for modification after regaining custody of the child.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Challenged the order requiring him to pay child support retroactively to the date upon which the Respondent regained custody of the child, but prior to the date upon which the Respondent filed the petition for modification. Additionally, the Petitioner challenged the district court’s denial of his request for interest and imposition of a payment deadline.
• Respondent-Appellee: Did not disagree with the Petitioner's challenge regarding the retroactive payment of child support but offered equitable considerations that might underlie the district court's decision.

Legal Issues

• Whether it is permissible to require the payment of child support retroactively to a date before the filing of a petition for modification.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Petitioner's request for interest and imposing a payment deadline.

Disposition

• The court decided to affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with their assessment.

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge concurring):
  The court found that requiring the Petitioner to pay child support retroactively to the date upon which the Respondent regained custody of the child, but prior to the date upon which the Respondent filed the petition for modification, is impermissible (paras 3-4). This decision was based on precedent that allows modification of child support to be retroactive only to the date of the petition for modification. The court observed that equitable considerations offered by the Respondent could be more appropriately accommodated in relation to the award of arrears and left the handling of this matter to the discretion of the district court on remand.
  Regarding the Petitioner's challenge to the district court’s denial of his request for interest and imposition of a payment deadline, the court perceived no abuse of discretion and proposed to summarily reject these arguments. The Petitioner's failure to file any memorandum in opposition led these issues to be deemed abandoned (para 4).