• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
INTH E C O 'U R TO 'F A P P E A L SO 'FTH E S T A T EO 'F K A N S A S
"
In th e M attero f the M arriag eo f
) \ue000
) \ue000
H A L L E C K R IC H A R D S O N ,
') \ue000
.,
)
i
P e titio n e r-A p p e lle e ,
)
v s.
)
C ase N o. 99-83905-A
)
C L A U D IN E D O M B R O W S K I,
)
)
R e s p o n d e n t-A p p e lla n t.
)
A P P E L L A N T 'SR E S P O 'N S ETO ' O 'R D E RTO ' S H O 'W
C A U S E
C O M E SN O 'W , th e A p p e lla n t-R e s p o n d e n t, C la u d in e D o m b ro w s k i, b y a n d th ro u g h h e r
counsel, R ebeccaA . K in g , o fth e la wf i r mo f R ilin g , B u r k h e a d&
N itcher, C hartered, andfo r her
response the c o u rt's O rder to ,,% o w C ause file d o n S e p t e m b e r 2 4
t h
,
1 9 9 9 , s ta te s th a t th e
fundam ental issuesi n the instant appeal are not identicali na ll respectst o those decided by the
c o u r t 's d e c is io ni nI n th e M a tte ro f th e M a r r ia g eo f H a lle c k R ic h a r d 'W na n d C la u d in e
.D om brow ski,C a s e N o . 8 0 ,3 0 4 , (u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n file d O c to b e r2 3 ,d ,1 9 9 8 , re v ie w
d e n ie d
D ecem ber2 2 n d ,1 9 9 8 ). F u rth e r, th e A p p e lla n t-R e s p o n d e n t s ta te s :
1 .
T h a t a lth o u g h th e b a s ic is s u eo f b o tho f th e c a s e s h a s b e e n th e A p p e lla n t\u00ad
.
R e s p o n d e n t's rig h t n o tt o b e fo rc e d to m o v e .fro m
C e n tra l K a n s a so r g iv e u p th e
c u s to d yo fh e r c h ild , th e r e h a v e b e e n in te rv e n in g e v e n ts th a t m a k e s th e is s u e si n
~
\ue000
..
th is c a s e d iffe re n t th a nI n th e M a tte ro f th e M a r r ia g eo f H a lle c k R ic h a r d s o na n d
C la u d in e D o m b r o w s k i,C a s e N o , 8 0 ,3 0 4 , (u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n file d O c to b e r2 3 'd ,
1 9 9 8 , re v ie w
denied D ecem ber2 2 n d , 1998).
T he current appeal arises outo f an
O rder to E nforce P rior O rder; O rder E stablishing S'upervised Visitation." O rder
I
/ \ue000
fo r H earing on C hild Support; O rder on M otion to C hange Venue;a n d O rder
Amending Prior Decishm Regarding Surname issued on June2 8
th
,
1 9 9 9 .
2. \ue000
In th e M a tte ro f th e M a r r ia g e( i f H a lle c k R ic h a r d s o na n d C la u d in e D o m b r o w s k i,
C a s e N o .8 0 ,3 0 4 , (u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n file d O c to b e r2 3 rd ,1 9 9 8 , re v ie w d e n ie d
D ecem ber2 2 n d ,1 9 9 8 ), arose from
an initial divorce proceeding w here there had
b e e n re g u la rly s c h e d u le d v is ita tio n b e tw e e n th e fa th e r, th e A p p e lle e -P e titio n e r, a n d
th e d a u g h te r.
In th e p re s e n t a p p e a l, th e A p p e lle e -P e titio n e r,v o lu n ta r ily g a v e u p
h is right to see h is c h ild /o r over a year.
(T h isi s a p a ra p h ra s e fro m
th e o rig in a l
transcript as transcribedi n a hearing on, June1 5
1
\
1 9 9 9 ,i nS h a w n e e C o u n ty
D istrict C o u rt, D iv isio n
1 2 ,p .1 0 8 , lin e s 1 - 1 0 .
A tta c h e d a s E x h ib it1 fo r th e
C o u r ts c o n v e n ie n c e .)
I t h a d n o th in gt o d o w ith th e s ta tu so f th e a p p e a l a s J u d g e
B u c h e le in d ic a te di nh is d e c is io n .
(P le a s e s e e a tta c h e d E x h ib it2 , a q u o te fro m
th e
original transcript as transcribedi n a hearing on, June1 5
th
,
1 9 9 9 ,i nShaw nee
C o u n ty D is tric t C o u rt, D iv is io n1 2 ,p . 1 3 9 , lin e s 1 1 - 2 5 . )
T h e A p p e lle e -P e titio n e r c le a rly g a v e u pa n o th e rw is e e n fo rc e a b le rig h t.
T hus, the real issue then becom es oneo fth e A p p e lle e -P e titio n e r a c q u ie s c in gt o th e
A ppel1ant-R espondenfs residence beingi nC entral K ansas.
B e c .a u s eo f th is , h e
sh o u ld b e e s to p p e d fro m
try in g to e n fo rc e a p rio r o rd e r fo r th e A p p e lla n t-
R e s p o n d e n t to m o v e w h e n th e A p p e lle e -P e titio n e r w o u ld n o t e n fo rc e h is o w n
v is ita tio n .
3. \ue001
In th e o rig in a l a p p e a l fro m
In th e M a tte ro f th e M a r r ia g eq f H a lle c k R ic h a r d s o n
a n d C la u d in e D o m b r o w s k i,C a s e N o .8 0 ,3 0 4 , (u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n file d O c to b e r
Page 2
2 3
r d
,
1 9 9 8 ,review denied D ecem ber 2 2
1 1 d
,
1 9 9 8 ),th e r e w a s n o e v id e n c eo f c h ild
a b u s eo r a b a n d o n m e n t (p h y s ic a lly , e m o tio n a lly a n d m o n e ta rily ) a si s e v id e n c e d
fro m
the recordi n the current appeal from
H on. Jam es B uchele'sO rdero f June
28, 1999.
O n c e a g a in , th e tria l c o u r t c le a rly d e n ie d w h a t w a si n th e b e s t in te re s to f
the childi n tryingt o force a shared custody arrangem ent for a m an w ho has

p h y s ic a lly a s s a u lte d m a n y p e o p le d u rin g th e y e a rs , a s w a s e v id e n c e d in th e a b o v e m e n tio n e d a p p e a l, b u t fo r w h o m th e rei sn o w s u s p ic io no f a b u s e (p h y s ic a lly a n d s e x u a lly ) a g a in s t th e m in o r c h ild , a n d w h o h a s a b a n d o n e d th e c h ild v o lu n ta rily fo r m o re th a n a y e a r.

H ow ever,i fth e A p p e lla n t-R e s p o n d e n t d o e s n o t c o m p ly w ith
th e O r d e r to m o v e , s o le c u s to d y c o u ld b e g ra n te d to th e a b o v e d e s c rib e d
in d iv id u a l a s th e A p p e lle e -P e titio n e r, th e fa th e ro fthe child. Is m aking a child
u p ro o t fro m
th e o n ly h o m e sh e k n o w st o m ove t o the sam e county w ith an
abusive, absentee fatheri n tlte m in o r c h ild 's b est interest?
4. \ue000
A d d itio n a lly , th e c u rre n t M o tio n fo r S ta y , in v o lv e s a q u e s tio n a st o w h e th e ro r n o t
th e C o u r t p ro p e rly m a d e ru lin g s w ith o u t h a v in g a n e v id e n tia ry h e a rin g o n th e
issues, w hich w as not an issuei n the previous case.

T h e A p p e lle e -R e s p o n d e n t, through C ounsel, had filed m any m otions before the hearing on June 1 5 '\1 9 9 9 . T h e M o tio n s th a t w e re filed w e re , to -w it: M o tio n fo r C h ild S u p p o rt, M o tio n to C h a n g e V e n u e , M o tio nt oM o d ifYC h ild C u s to d y .

A t th e b e g in n in go f th e h e a rin g
h e ld o n J u n e1 5
t h
,
1 9 9 9 ,the A ppellee-R espondent's Counsel asked the H on. Jam es
B u c h e le w h a t m a tte rs w e re b e fo re th e c o u rt o n th a t m o rn in g .
The response w as
th a t w e w e re th e re o n th e A p p e lle e -R e s p o n d e n t' sO
~
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
\ue000to the C ase
Page 3
,
'
,
,
i
'
', 1
of 00

Leave a Comment

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