Shuman v Shuman

Husband appealed the child custody and property division provisions of the divorce decree. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part. It affirmed as to child custody as husband ignored most of the trial court’s findings and failed to marshal the evidence which supports the findings and thus failed to carry his burden of persuasion. As to the property issues, the panel held husband again failed to identify many of the findings and failed to marshal the evidence and also field to discuss the context of the debt division given wife’s bankruptcy which benefited both parties, but, held husband correctly argued the district court failed to explain why there was no adjustment for double counting some blankets and found clear error in failing to decide whether an alleged martial debt was marital debt and which party should be responsible for it and thus remanded for additional fact-finding and possible adjustment to the property and debt division. It reversed and remanded in part the children’s medical bill order based on wife’s concession some duplication of billing occurred and also based on the district court’s error not addressing husband claim wife failed to reimburse him for certain expenses. It reversed and reamd the child support order as the district court failed to address the parties’ agreement about credits for husband’s parenting time and held the other argeutmns were unpreserved or inadequately briefed. It finally held husband’s parenting time argeutmns were unprerserved.

State v Patterson

Patterson appealed his conviction for object rape. The panel affirmed holding that while there was no direct evidence of penetration, testimony from the victim that Patterson had his hands on her labia, felt pain and never experienced anything like it before coupled with Patterson’s testimony he was trying to penetrate victim’s vagina with his finger made it more likely that penetration occurred and thus there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

In the Interests of J.M. and C.M (C.M. v State)

C.M. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed holing evidence that C.M. made one visit to the children during the relevant time period, failed to make any efforts to overcome his drug problem and showed a complete lack of self-awareness about how his problems affected the children all supported a finding that C.M. made only token efforts to communicate, prevent neglect and avoiding unfit parenthood and thus termination was appropriate here.