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 dispute between the parents of two minor children over the modification of their joint custody arrangement. The father sought to modify the custody arrangement to have physical custody during the school week and enroll the children in a different school district, alleging the mother violated their agreement by enrolling the children in a charter school without his consent and citing the children's poor attendance record under her care.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner (Father): Argued that the mother violated the custody arrangement by enrolling the children in a charter school without his consent and cited the children's poor attendance record as a basis for modifying the custody arrangement to grant him physical custody during the school week.
• Respondent (Mother): Contended that her due process rights were violated due to inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard, failure to receive hearings on certain motions, and inability to cross-examine certain witnesses. She also argued that there was no substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying the custody arrangement and claimed bias against her in the proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Whether the mother's due process rights were violated in the modification of the custody arrangement.
• Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances that affected the children's best interests, justifying the modification of the custody arrangement.

Disposition

• The district court's modification of the custody arrangement, granting the father physical custody during the school week and enrolling the children in Los Alamos Public Schools, was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Henderson writing the opinion, concurred by Judges Duffy and Yohalem, found that:
  The mother was afforded sufficient due process. She agreed to the expedited hearing and truncated time period for submitting objections to the priority consultant’s recommendations, which were in the children's interests. The court also found that the mother's arguments regarding the lack of hearings for her motions and inability to cross-examine certain witnesses were insufficiently developed or unsupported by the record (paras 7-11).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the custody arrangement. The court found a substantial change in circumstances, including the children's poor attendance record under the mother's care and her violation of the custody arrangement by enrolling the children in a new school without the father's consent. These factors were deemed to affect the children's best interests, supporting the modification of the custody arrangement (paras 13-18).