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 a Father and a Mother over child custody orders, specifically regarding visitation schedules, the responsibility for travel expenses for the Daughter to visit Father, and whether Mother had violated these orders. The Father argued that Mother had not complied with the custody orders by interfering with or undermining his visitation rights and failing to cover travel expenses for their Daughter's visits to him. The Daughter was a teenager at the time of the initial dispute and had turned eighteen before the hearing.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that Mother violated child custody orders by interfering with visitation schedules, failing to make the Daughter available for visits, and not bearing the travel expenses for the Daughter's visits to Father. Father sought reimbursement for travel expenses and attorney fees.
• Mother: Contended that she had not violated the custody orders, making reasonable efforts to facilitate visitation between Father and Daughter, including purchasing a vehicle for travel and offering to accompany the Daughter on visits.

Legal Issues

• Whether Mother violated the child custody orders by not facilitating visitation between Father and Daughter and by not bearing the Daughter's travel expenses.
• Whether Father is entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses and attorney fees.
• Whether the district court erred in denying admission of Father's summary exhibit at the hearing.

Disposition

• The district court's denial of Father's motion for order to show cause was affirmed.
• The district court's decision to deny Father's request for reimbursement of travel expenses and attorney fees was affirmed.
• The district court's refusal to admit Father's summary exhibit was affirmed.

Reasons

• DUFFY, J., HANISEE, J., and HENDERSON, J. concurring: The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motion for order to show cause, as substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mother had not violated the custody orders (paras 2-6). The Court noted that Mother had made reasonable efforts to facilitate visitation and that there was no court order requiring her to pay for the Daughter's flights to visit Father (para 4). The Court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit Father's summary exhibit due to failure to provide it to Mother in advance of the hearing, aligning with procedural fairness and the due process rights of both parties (paras 11-14).