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 custody and visitation rights between the Mother, Laura Walraven, and the Father, James Smith, Jr., concerning their child. The Mother, appearing pro se, appealed against the district court's order which found her in contempt of court, suspended all previous custody and visitation orders, and established a new visitation schedule for her. Additionally, the Mother challenged the implicit denial of her motion for reconsideration of the court's earlier order that awarded primary physical custody of the child to the Father.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Daylene Marsh, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that the district court erred by granting her attorney's motion to withdraw without a hearing and failing to appoint a new attorney for her, contending that these actions were tantamount to terminating her parental rights. She also raised issues regarding the district court's decisions related to her psychiatric examination report, her alleged statement of non-compliance with court orders, the court's alleged bias and contempt towards her disability, and a contempt finding for not appearing at a hearing she claims she was not notified about.
• Father (N/A): The summary does not provide specific arguments or submissions made by the Father in response to the Mother's appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Mother's attorney's motion to withdraw without a hearing and failing to appoint a new attorney for her.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in requiring the Mother to share the results of her court-ordered psychiatric examination with the entity supervising her visitation.
• Whether the district court erred in its reliance on the Mother's statement about not following court orders.
• Whether the district court demonstrated bias against the Mother, affecting the best interest of the child.
• Whether the district court erred in finding the Mother in contempt for failing to appear at a hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals denied the Mother's motion to amend the docketing statement and affirmed the district court's order finding the Mother in contempt of court, suspending all previous custody and visitation orders, and establishing a new visitation schedule for the Mother.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and M. Monica Zamora concurring, found no error in the district court's decisions. The Court noted that the Mother did not provide sufficient legal authority to support her claims regarding the withdrawal of her attorney and the lack of a hearing for the motion to withdraw. The Court also highlighted that there is no right to appointed counsel in civil cases and that the Mother did not preserve several of her claims for review by failing to raise them in the district court. Specifically, the Court found no evidence of bias in the district court's rulings and determined that the Mother's claims regarding the psychiatric examination report and her statement of non-compliance with court orders were either unpreserved or unsupported by the record. Additionally, the Court clarified that the contempt finding was based on the Mother's failure to exchange the child with the Father as agreed, not her failure to appear at a hearing.