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 Lacey Potts (Mother) and Jason Pratz (Father) over the custody arrangement of their minor daughter (Child). Initially, the parents shared joint custody, with Mother as the primary custodial parent. This arrangement changed to a 50/50 timesharing schedule in July 2019. The dispute arose after Mother relocated with Child to Portales, New Mexico, leading Father to file a motion for the immediate return of Child to Albuquerque. The district court ordered that if Mother returned to Albuquerque, the 50/50 timesharing would resume; otherwise, Child would reside primarily with Father. Mother did not return to Albuquerque, prompting further legal proceedings.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that the district court's orders modifying the custody arrangement were not supported by findings regarding the best interest of Child, violated her due process rights, erroneously precluded her from presenting evidence, and that the judge exhibited bias and a lack of impartiality.
• Father: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's orders modifying the custody arrangement were supported by findings regarding the best interest of Child.
• Whether the district court's orders violated Mother's due process rights.
• Whether the district court erroneously precluded Mother from presenting evidence.
• Whether the district court judge exhibited bias and a lack of impartiality.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee authoring the opinion and Judges Kristina Bogardus and Zachary A. Ives concurring, found that the district court's child custody determination was supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion (paras 2-9). The court emphasized that the custody modification was based on a substantial change in circumstances, specifically Mother's relocation, and was in the best interest of Child. The court also addressed Mother's due process claims, finding them to be without merit due to a lack of meaningful analysis or application of law to the facts (para 11-12). Regarding the opportunity to present evidence, the court noted that the record did not support Mother's assertion that she was precluded from presenting evidence regarding alleged abuse by Father (para 13). Lastly, the court dismissed Mother's claims of judicial misconduct, finding her arguments to be undeveloped (para 14).