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, Gerald Chavez, appealing against a district court order that extended an order of protection against him and modified a child custody agreement concerning his minor children. The appellant argued that the order was based on false statements by the respondent and her witness.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that the district court’s order extending a restraining order was based on lies told by the respondent and her witness. Also challenged the modification of his visitation schedule with his minor children, claiming that the respondent created an internet account in his name to fabricate evidence against him (paras 2, 3, 5).
• Respondent: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in extending the order of protection based on the credibility of the respondent and her witness.
• Whether the district court erred in modifying the child custody agreement based on a substantial change in circumstances that affects the best interests of the children.

Disposition

• The district court's order extending an order of protection and modifying a child custody agreement was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Timothy L. Garcia authoring the memorandum opinion, and Judges M. Monica Zamora and Henry M. Bohnhoff concurring, provided several reasons for affirming the district court's decision. Firstly, the appellate court highlighted its inability to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses, as only the trial court can weigh evidence, determine credibility, and reconcile inconsistencies (para 2). Secondly, the court noted that modification of custody arrangements is within the sound discretion of the district court, requiring a showing of a substantial change in circumstances that affects the best interests of the children. The appellant failed to provide a complete recitation of the evidence and testimony below, hindering meaningful appellate review (paras 3-5). Lastly, the court refused to consider documents and voice recordings not introduced in the district court, as it reviews only matters presented to the district court (para 6).