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 Jennifer T. Hoffman (Petitioner-Appellee) and Michael Hoffman (Respondent-Appellant) over the modification of a child custody timesharing arrangement. The appellant sought to modify the existing arrangement, arguing changes in circumstances that would justify such a modification in the best interests of the children involved.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that a change in his work schedule and the original intention for equal timesharing with the children justified a modification of the custody arrangement. He also contended that the current timesharing arrangement was not in the best interests of the children and that his petition to modify the timesharing arrangement was timely despite being filed two years after his work schedule changed.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the motion to modify the child custody timesharing arrangement.
• Whether the appellant established a material change in circumstances that affect the best interests of the child.
• Whether the district court properly considered the best interests of the children in its decision.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the motion to modify the child custody timesharing arrangement.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The Court of Appeals found that modification of custody arrangements is entrusted to the discretion of the district court, which may modify a prior custody order if circumstances change in a manner that furthers the child's best interests. The appellant's docketing statement lacked a recitation of evidence supporting the district court's ruling, and he failed to challenge the district court's findings of fact effectively. The district court's findings indicated that the current timesharing arrangement had been in place for six years, providing stability and routine for the children, which was in their best interests. The appellant's arguments regarding his changed work schedule and the timing of his petition for modification did not establish a material change in circumstances. Additionally, the district court considered the children's best interests, including the stability of the current arrangement and the children's adjustment to it. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination and affirmed the decision to deny the motion to modify the custody arrangement.