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 over the guardianship of a child, Allison Scott G., between Kelly Lehman (Respondent-Appellant) and Virginia Lehman (Petitioner-Appellee). The core of the dispute centers on the appointment of Virginia Lehman as the guardian for the child.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Sought to amend the docketing statement to include claims that the district court used the wrong standard in its decision, erroneously relied on "psychological parenting," and relied on incompetent evidence from the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court used the correct standard in making its decision on guardianship.
• Whether the district court erroneously relied on "psychological parenting" in its decision.
• Whether the district court relied on incompetent evidence from the GAL in its decision.
• Whether expert testimony was required regarding psychological harm to the child.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court to appoint Petitioner as guardian for the child.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Jonathan B. Sutin, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring):
  The Court of Appeals was not persuaded by the Respondent's arguments to amend the docketing statement with additional claims. The court found that the Respondent failed to meet the requirements for amending the docketing statement as outlined in State v. Rael, including not explaining how the issues were preserved below or why they were not included in the original docketing statement. Furthermore, the court determined that the issues the Respondent sought to add were not viable, noting that the evidence presented to the district court was sufficient to show that denying the petition would likely result in serious detriment to the child, which was the applicable standard in this case.
  Regarding the necessity of expert testimony on psychological harm, the Court of Appeals found no indication that the district court relied on or considered psychological harm in its decision to appoint the Petitioner as guardian. Therefore, the court concluded that expert testimony was not required in this case.
  The decision of the district court was affirmed based on the reasons discussed in the opinion and the court's calendar notice, upholding the appointment of Petitioner as guardian for the child.