• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
N O T D E S IG N A T E D
F O R P U B L IC A T IO N \ue000
N o.
8 0 ,3 0 4 \ue000
I NTH E
COURTO F APPEALS OF THES T A T EO F KANSAS \ue000
.~
\ue000
. \
,
I nth e M a tte r 'o f th e M a rria g e o f \ue000
H A L L E C K
R IC H A R D S O N , \ue000
A p p e lle e ,
'...
a n d
~
.
\ue000
C L A U D IN E
D O M B R O W S K I,
A p p e lla n t.
M EM ORANDUM
O P IN IO N
A ppeal fro m
S h a w n e e D istric t C o u rt;JA t"\!V V . L E U E N B E R G E Ra n d JA M E SP .
B U C H E L E , ju d g e s .
O p in io nfile d O c to b e r2 3 , 1 9 9 8 .
A ffirm ed .
G earyN . G orup,o f R e n d e r K a m a s , L .e , o f W ic h ita , fo r a p p e lla n t.
D o n a ld
R .H o ffm a n , of H offm an
&
H o ffm a n , o f T o p e k a , fo r a p p e lle e .
B e f o r e M A R Q U A R D T , P .J ., G E R N O N
a n d K N U D SO N , IT .
P er
C u r ia m :
C la u d in e
D o m b ro w s k i a p p e a ls fro m
a d iv o rc e
d e c r e ew h ic h
w o u ld
re q u ire
h e r
t o
m ove
b a c k to
th e
d is tric t c o u rt's ju ris d ic tio n
o r
lo s e
jo in t
c u s to d y o fh e r m in o r c h ild .
1
; :
D o m b ro w s k i a rg u e s th a t h e r c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts w e re v io la te d
b y the district
c o u rt's
ru lin g
a n d
b y
th e
c o u r t's p o lic y
to
c o m p e l s e ttle m e n t o f d o m e s tic
is s u e s
before triaL
S h e
fu rth e rc o n te n d s th e d is tric t c o u rt e rre d in lim itin g
th e num bero f
w itnesses each side could present at triaL
D om brow skia n d H alleck Richardson w ere m arried in1 9 9 5 ,a n d
a petition for
d iv o rc e
w as filed
4
m o n th s
la te r.
At the
tim e o f th e ir m a rria g e , th e ir c h ild ,R D .,
w a s1 1 m o n th s o ld .
C u s to d y
a n d
v is ita tio n
is s u e s
w ere
fie rc e ly
litig a te d .
A t
som e
p o in t,
D om brow ski
s o u g h t
a n d
r e c e iv e d
th e
d i s t r i c tc o u rt's
a p p r o v a l
t o
m ove
fro m
Topeka, K ansas, to
G reat Bend, K ansas.
D om brow ski alleged
th a tth e
m ove
w as
necessary to avoid
fu rth e ra b u s e fro m
R ichardson
a n d to o b ta ine m p lo y m e n t.
S h e
also noted that w hile there w as no statutory duty to obtain leave of the district court
to m ove from
one county in Kansas to
another, she sought perm ission
to a v o id a n y
concerns over the residential custody of R D .
T he
c o u r t aw arded
D om brow ski
te m p o ra ry
p la c e m e n t
o f
th e
c h ild
a n d
ordered that R ichardsonw o u ld have
th e c h ild
1 w e e ko u t o f th e m o n th .
T hec o u r t
a ls o
o r d e r e d
D om brow skit o
m ove back
to
T o p e k a w ithR D . b y
a certain
d a teo r
R ichardson
w o u ld
assum es o le re s id e n tia l c u s to d y o f th e c h ild .

T hec o u r tr e s e r v e d d e te rm in in gs h a r e d c u s to d y a n d a p p o in tin g a re s id e n tia l p a re n t u n til D o m b ro w s k i's re lo c a tio n d e a d lin e p a s s e d .

D om brow ski appeals.
2
.
~
-
-
....~
-
-
-
....-
-
..-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....-
.
~
\ue000
D o m b ro w s k i a rg u e s th a t h e r c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts w e re v io la te db y th e c o u rt's
a rb itra ry
ru lin g
th a ti tw asi n
th e b e s t in te re s ts o f th e
c h ild
fo r
h e r
t o
re tu rn
t o
Topeka, Kansas.
S h e
fu rth e r
claim s
th a t
th e
u n iq u e
circum stances
o f
th is
c a s e
d e n ie d
h e ra
fu ll
a n d
fa ir o p p o rtu n ity
t o
d e f e n d
a n d
t o
p r e s e n te v id e n c e
o n
h e r
b e h a lf.
D om brow ski
d id
n o tf i l e
a m o tio n
fo r re c o n s id e ra tio n
o ra n y
o th e r
ty p eo f
p o s t-ju d g m e n t re lie f w ith th e d is tric t c o u rt.
D om brow ski acknow ledges that she
failed to
properly raiseh e rc o n te n tio n s
b u t m a in ta in sth is
c a s e
falls w ithin
th e
e x c e p tio n s
t o
th e
g e n e r a lru le
w here
th e
th e o rie s
in v o lv e
o n ly
le g a l q u e s tio n s a ris in go n
p r o v e nfa c tsa n di t is n e c e s s a r y to
s e r v eth ein te re s ts o f ju s tic eo r p re v e n t th e
d e n ia l o f fu n d a m e n ta l rig h ts .
S eeI n
r e
M .M .L .,2 5 8K a n . 2 5 4 ,2 6 1 ,9 0 0 P .2 d8 1 3(1 9 9 5 ).
I ti sw ith in
th e
trial court's discretion
to
d e te rm in e
is s u e sc o n c e rn in g
c h ild
c u s to d ya n d v is ita tio n .
I n
r e M arriageo f M c N e e ly ,1 5K a n . A p p . 2 d7 6 2 , 7 6 4 ,8 1 5 P .2 d
1 1 2 5 ,r e v .d e n ie d
249 K an.7 7 6(1 9 9 1 ); seeI n
r eM arriageo fB ra d le y , 258 K an. 39, 45,
8 9 9P .2 d4 7 1
(1 9 9 5 ).
D is c re tio n is a b u s e dw hen
n o
r e a s o n a b lep e r s o nw o u ld
a g r e e
w ith
th e
tria lc o u rt's a c tio n s .
F u sa ro
v .
F irstF a m ilyM tg.
C o r p ., 257 K an.7 9 4 , 804,
8 9 7 P .2 d1 2 3(1 9 9 5 ).
'''I n
d e te rm in in g
th e
rig h t
of custody
o f
c h ild re n
b e tw e e n
p a r e n ts ,
th e
p rim ary
c o n s id e ra tio n
is th e b e st in te re s t a n d w e lfa re o f th e c h ild re n ,a n d
a llo th e r
is s u e sa res u b o rd in a te th e re to .'"
In
r e
G u a r d ia n s h ip
o f W illia m s,2 5 4
K an. 814,8 1 9 ,
8 6 9P .2 d
6 6 1
(1994) (quotingP a rish
v .
P a rish ,2 2 0K a n . 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 ,5 5 1 P .2 d
7 9 2 [1 9 7 6 ]).
3 \ue000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.....-
.
~
\ue000
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...