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, Harrison Thompson, who is self-represented, appealing against two district court orders related to a domestic violence order of protection and issues of custody, time sharing, and child support. The appellant did not attend the hearings for either the initial order of protection or its two-year extension and attempted to challenge the proceedings' validity on appeal.

Procedural History

• District Court of Lincoln County, July 16, 2014: Order of protection entered against Harrison Thompson.
• District Court of Lincoln County, April 23, 2015: Order determining custody, time sharing, and child support issued.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that he did not attend the hearings due to a "hoax search" at his parents' home and claimed not to have been notified about the hearing to extend the order of protection. He also contended that the court's decisions were incorrect, although he provided no specific assertions of error or legal authority to support his position.
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's absence from the hearings due to a "hoax search" and alleged lack of notification justifies overturning the district court's orders.
• Whether the appellant has provided sufficient grounds and legal authority to challenge the district court's decisions on the order of protection and custody, time sharing, and child support.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's orders regarding the domestic violence order of protection and declined to consider the custody, time sharing, and child support order due to it not being properly before the court.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, with Michael E. Vigil and M. Monica Zamora, Judges concurring, found that the appellant did not demonstrate any specific assertions of error regarding the domestic violence special commissioner and/or the district court's decisions. The court noted the appellant's failure to file objections to the special commissioner’s recommendations or to demonstrate attendance or proper attempt to attend the hearings. The court also observed that the appellant provided no legal authority to support his positions. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellant did not meet his burden on appeal to show error in the trial court's rulings and affirmed the decisions (paras 1-6).