MANDATE ‘COURT OF APPEALS, Appellate Court No. 99-83905-A ss. STATE OF KANSAS, District Court No. 96D217 ‘The State of Kansas, to the District Court within and for the County of SHAWNEE in the State of Kansas, Greeting: WHEREAS, In a certain civil action lately pending before you, wherein HALLECK RICHARDSON, plaintiff, and, CLAUDINE DOMBROWSRI, defendant, a judgment was rendered by you against the said defendant from which judgment said defendant prosecuted an appeal in the Court of Appeals within and for the State of Kansas; AND WHEREAS, on June 30, 2000, on consideration of the said appeal it was ordered and adjudged by the said Court of Appeals thatthe judgment of the District Court be affirmed, An attested trve copy of opinion attached. YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED, That without delay you cause execution to be had of the said judgment of the Court of Appeals, according to law. Costs Fees of Clerk of the Appellate Cours cesses $55.00 ‘Other Costs . Total ..... : WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Court of Appeals affixed hereto, at my office, in the City of Topeka,on___ aug 7.2000 - CAROL G. GREEN, Cok gf : SvSHYYIy TRIALJUDGE NOTIFIED Due _@-4-00 2 woitaies sr OE 21 b= SNV OO0e Si0-IIgigAr OUIKL 1869 LORISIO "SY wea Aa oadNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 83,905 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of the Marriage of HALLECK RICHARDSON, ‘Appellee, and CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, Appellant: MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Shawnee District Court; JAMES P. BUCHELE and RICHARD ANDERSON, judges. Opinion filed June 30, 2000. Affirmed. Rebecca A. King, of Riling, Burkhead & Nitcher, Chtd., of Lawrence, for the appellant. No appearance by the appellee. Before GREEN, P.J., LEWIS, J., and ROBERT J. FLEMING, District Judge, assigned. Per Curiam: Claudine Dombrowski appeals from an order entered by the district court in 1995 and affirmed by this court in 1998. (In re Marriage of Richardson, No. 80,304, unpublished opinion filed October 23, 1998.) Halleck Richardson requested summary disposition of this appeal pursuant to SupremeCourt Rule 7.041 (1999 Kan Ct. R. Annot. 46). Dombrowski filed a reply to Richardson’s request, and he filed a motion to strike the reply. In deciding this appeal, we have considered all of the parties’ pleadings. We note that Richardson did not file a brief in this appeal. Dombrowski’s appeal is totally without merit. In the 1998 decision, we considered, among other things, whether the trial court's decree requiring Dombrowski to move back to Topeka or lose joint custody of her minor child violated her constitutional rights. We decided that issue by affirming the trial court's ruling that Dombrowski was required to relocate to Topeka in the best interests of the child. This appeal challenges the district court's order enforcing our decision in the prior appeal. Dombrowski continues to resist the trial court’s order. She now argues that because of the passage of time, that order should be vacated. We do not agree. In the earlier appeal, we considered the best interests of the child. We conclude on this occasion that the passage of time during which Dombrowski has continued to defy the court’s orders does not constitute a material change of circumstances. Our decision in case No. 80,304 is dispositive of this appeal. Inasmuch as our prior decision is dispositive of this appeal, we grant Richardson's motion for summary disposition, and we affirm the decision of the trial court in this case pursuant to Rule 7.041 (1999 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 46). Affirmed. Ate copy ATTEST 7 Coast g ger Clerk Supreme Court