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 an appeal by the Respondent against an award of child support arrears to the Petitioner. The Respondent's arguments against the award include the child reaching the age of majority and the Petitioner's receipt of public assistance. Additionally, the Respondent alleges judicial bias and accuses the Petitioner of committing perjury regarding allegations of rape.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the award of child support arrears was improper due to the child reaching the age of majority and the Petitioner's receipt of public assistance. Additionally, claimed judicial bias and accused the Petitioner of committing perjury regarding rape allegations (paras 3-5).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the award of child support arrears to the Petitioner was proper despite the child reaching the age of majority and the Petitioner receiving public assistance.
• Whether there was judicial bias in the case.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing the Petitioner to allegedly commit perjury regarding rape allegations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to award child support arrears to the Petitioner (para 6).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and Cynthia A. Fry, Judge concurring:
  The court found that the Respondent's obligation to pay child support arrears was unaffected by the child reaching the age of majority or the Petitioner's receipt of public assistance, citing precedent that supports the maintenance of child support arrears under such circumstances (para 3).
  The court rejected the Respondent's claim of judicial bias, noting that adverse rulings alone do not constitute bias and that the alleged familiarity between the judge and a non-court staff member did not provide a basis for disqualification (para 4).
  Regarding the allegations of perjury by the Petitioner, the court held that the Petitioner was entitled to present her case and that her testimony constituted evidence. The court found no merit in the Respondent's assertions of error related to these allegations (para 5).