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 Jenna Strehlow (Mother) and Laban Strehlow (Father) over the custody of their Child. The district court had previously issued a temporary child custody order, establishing a timesharing schedule pending a final hearing. This temporary order was based on an agreement stipulated by the parties during mediation and approved by the district court. The district court later granted shared custody of the Child to both parents, a decision which Mother appealed.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that the temporary child custody order constituted an existing custody arrangement, requiring a substantial and material change in circumstances for joint custody to be awarded. She also contended that the district court's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and challenged the credibility determinations made during a telephone hearing.
• Father: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the temporary child custody order required a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances for joint custody to be awarded.
• Whether the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The district court’s order awarding shared physical custody of the Child was affirmed.

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Zachary A. Ives, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Katherine A. Wray concurring. The court found that the temporary order did not constitute a "durable custody arrangement" and thus did not require findings of a substantial and material change in circumstances before awarding shared physical custody (para 3). It was determined that the temporary order was clearly intended as interim, pending a final hearing, and did not make any findings regarding the best interests of the Child. The court also addressed Mother's challenge to the district court's findings, stating that the evidence presented at the district court supported the decision to grant shared custody. The court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence but decides if the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, indulging every reasonable inference in favor of the district court’s disposition (paras 4-7). The court rejected Mother's argument regarding the credibility determinations made during a telephone hearing, noting the absence of authority to support her assertion and reaffirming the deference given to the district court's factual determinations (para 8). Lastly, the court found that the district court had considered the best interests of the Child in its decision, and Mother did not successfully demonstrate error regarding her issue preclusion argument (paras 9-11).