• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
~
C
?
\ue000
\ue000
H O FFM A N&
H O FFM A N
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
\ue000
1 1 2 W e s t S e v e n th \ue000
G a rd e n S u ite \ue000
Topeka, K ansas 66603 \ue000
D o n a ldR . H o ffm an
G eorgeL .M artin ,
In v e s tig a to r \ue000
J a s o nP . H o ffm an \ue000
T e le p h o n e :
(7 8 5 ) 2 3 3 -5 8 8 7
F a c s im ile :
(7 8 5 ) 2 3 3 -2 1 7 3
January 12,2000
R ebeccaA . K in g
R IL IN G , B U R K H E A D&
N IT C H E R , C h td .
808 M assachusetts Street
Law rence, K ansas 66044
R e:
In th e M a tte ro f th e M a r r ia g eo f R ic h a r d s o n
j
K ansas C ourto f A ppeals No. 99-83905-A
M s. K ing:
P le a s e fin d e n c lo s e d h e re w ith a c o p yo f A p p e lla n t's M o tio n fo r S u m m a ry D is p o s itio n
file d w ith th e C le r k o f th e C o u r to f A p p e a ls to d a y 's d a te .
C o rd ia lly ,
D O N A LDR . H O FFM
A tto rn e ya t L aw
D R H /ss
E n c l:a s a b o v e
c c . c lie n t
INTH E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R TH E S T A T E O F K A N S A S
H A L L E C K R IC H A R D S O N ,
) \ue000
) \ue000
P e titio n e r - A p p e lle e ,
) \ue000
vs. \ue000
)
Case No. 99-83905-A
) \ue000
C L A U D IN E D O M B R O W S K I,
) \ue000
) \ue000
R e s p o n d e n t - A p p e lla n t.
) \ue000
M O T IO N F O R S U M M A R Y D IS P O S IT IO N
COM ES
N O :'.Vth e A p p e lle e a b o v e n a m e d ,b y a n d th ro u g h c o u n s e l D o n a ldR . H o ffm a n ,
and m oves C ourt pursuantt oS u p re m e C o u rt R u le 7 .0 4 1
to enter an O rder an O rdero f S um m ary
D isposition w ith respectt oA p p e lla n t's c la im so f e rro r.
In support thereof, the C ourti sshow n:
1. \ue001A p p e lla n t p u rp o rts to c la im

error w ith respect to the D istrict C o u rt's O rdert o E nforce P rio r O rd e r, O rd e r E s ta b lis h in g S u p e rv is e d V is ita tio n , O rd e r fo r H e a rin g o n C h ild Support, O rder on

M o tio n
to C h a n g e V e n u e
a n d
O rder A m ending
P rio r D e c is io n
R egarding Surnam e, entered June 28, 1999C R . X lI, at 3 2 );
2.\ue000 Said orders stem
fro m
the D istrict C ourt's Journal Entryo fD iv o rc e file d O c to b e r 2 9 ,
1 9 9 7
C R .
I ,
a t
3 1 3 )
p o rtio n s
o f
w h ic h
w ere
th e
s u b je c t
o f
A p p e lla n t's
f i r s t
u n s u c c e s s f u l a p p e a l to th is C o u rt.
The C ourt found

th a t th e D is tric t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n w ith re s p e c t to o rd e rin g A p p e lla n t to m o v e b a c k to th e T o p e k a a r e a

a n d
d id
n o t v io la te A p p e lla n t's
c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts .
I n
th e
M a tter
o fth e
M arriageo fR ic h a r d s o n , N o . 8 0 ,3 0 4 ,m em o o p . a t 5 (K a n . C t. A p p . O c t. 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 ).
W hile
th e
is s u e
o f th e
p a rtie s ' m in o rc h ild 's
"best interests"
w as
not raised
b y
A p p e lla n t a t th a t s ta g e , th is C o u rt a d d re s s e d it b y s ta tin g :
D om broski
d o e s
n o t c h a lle n g e
th e
c o u rt's
fin d in g
re g a rd in g
h e r
daughter's best interests.
E v e n if D o m b ro w s k i d is p u te d th e fin d in g ,
th e te s tim o n yo fthe guardian ad litem
and the court services officer
p ro v id e s
s u b s ta n tia l
c o m p e te n t
e v id e n c e
t o
s u p p o r t
th e
c o u rt's
d e c is io n .
C onsequently, the m ere fact that D om brow ski m ust decide
w h e th e r to
m o v e o r fo rfe it s o m eo f her rights to
custody does not
establish an abuseo fd is c re tio n .
Id. \ue000at 4-5.
3 . \ue000 A p p e lla n t file d h e r P e titio n fo r R e v ie w
w ith th e K a n s a s S u p r e m e C o u r t o n o r a b o u t
N ovem ber2 0 ,1 9 9 8 and the sam e w as denied on D ecem ber 21, 1998;
4. \ue000 A s far as counsel for A ppellee can tell from

A p p e lla n t's c u rre n t b rie f, sh e fra m e s h e r c a s e u n d e r th e th e o r ie s th a t th e J u n e 2 8 , 1 9 9 9 o rd e rs w ith r e s p e c t to th e r e s id e n c yo f th e m in o r c h ild d o n o t ta k e in to c o n s id e r a tio n h e r b e s t in te r e s ts a n d v io la te h e r a n d A p p e lla n t's c o n s titu tio n a l rig h ts;

5. \ue000A p p e lla n t
p ro v id e s
n o
argum ent
1 0
h e r
b rie f
w ith
re g a rd
t o
th e
b a s is
o f
h e r
c o n s titu tio n a l c la im (s ).
N o tw ith s ta n d in g th is fa c t, a n y a r g u m e n t w ith re s p e c t to s o m e
o f f - h a n d c o n s titu tio n a l c la im
A p p e lla n t th in k s sh e m a y h a v e w a s d e a lt w ith b y th is
C o u r t in th e p r e v io u s a p p e a l;

6. \ue000 A ppellant does m anage to get across, how ever, that requiring A ppellantt om o v e fro m h e r c u r r e n t lo c a tio n to th e T o p e k a a re a is in c o n s is te n t w ith th e b e s t in te re s tso f th e p a rtie s ' m in o r c h ild .

A s previously stated in paragraph 2, above, this issue w as not d ire c tly ra is e d b y A p p e lla n t in h e r firs t a p p e a l b u t th is C o u r t a d d re s s e d it n o n e th e le s s fin d in g a g a in s t A p p e lla n t;

7 . \ue000 E s s e n tia lly , A p p e lla n t is a s k in g
th is C o u r t to
re v ie w
its e lf w ith
r e s p e c tt o
m atters
p re v io u s ly ru le d u p o n .
The June 28, 1999 orders she com plains about in the instant
a p p e a l m e re ly u p h e ld th e o rd e rs c o n ta in e d in th eO c to b e r 2 9 , 1 9 9 7 Jo u rn a l E n tryo f
of 00

Leave a Comment

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