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, John Hogden, a self-represented litigant, who sought to modify custody and filed eight motions in July 2017 concerning various allegations against his ex-wife, including felony contempt of court, contribution to the delinquency of a minor, and violations of his rights to free speech and to face his accuser. The district court denied these motions, finding them moot as the youngest child turned 18 years old in July 2017, eliminating the basis for relief (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Matthew J. Wilson, District Judge, denying pending motions filed August 18, 2017, and the order denying request for recusal and adopting priority consultation recommendations, filed October 12, 2016.

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant: Argued that the district court's orders violated his rights, including free speech and the right to face his accuser, and raised issues of libel, harassment, due process, and infringements on the First Amendment. He requested various reliefs, including declarations regarding the constitutionality of the best interests of the child standard and orders affecting domestic violence education programs (paras 3-4).
• Petitioner-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant's motions as moot following the youngest child reaching the age of majority.
• Whether issues raised by the appellant, including libel, harassment, due process, and First Amendment infringements, were appropriately before the court and preserved for appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s orders and denied the appellant's request for additional time to amend his appeal (para 5).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Emil J. Kiehne and Daniel J. Gallegos concurring, the Court of Appeals found that the appellant's motions were appropriately deemed moot by the district court as the youngest child had turned 18, eliminating the basis for custody modification or related relief. The appellate court also determined that the issues the appellant sought to raise on appeal, including those related to libel, harassment, due process, and First Amendment infringements, were outside the scope of its review or not preserved for appeal. The court exercised judicial restraint, avoiding moot or academic questions and unnecessary constitutional issues, and affirmed the district court's orders based on these findings (paras 2-5).