Opinion ID: 2608774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the superior court err in denying p.e.'s motion in limine?

Text: P.E.'s motion in limine requested an order requiring that all the evidence of the previous court case on custody ..., all evidence on psychological issues of the natural mother and all evidence which does not directly deal with the issue of waiver of consent to this adoption be excluded from evidence. P.E. argues on appeal that the superior court erred in admitting evidence of P.E.'s psychological condition, specifically, Dr. H.'s deposition. There is, however, nothing in the record to suggest that the superior court considered any evidence produced in the 1986 custody case. [2] Moreover, in making her case that she had justifiable cause for not communicating with D.J.A., P.E. opened the door to the question of P.E.'s attempts to obtain psychotherapy. [3] L.A. must be permitted to rebut P.E.'s evidence. [4] Therefore, we hold that the superior court did not err in denying P.E.'s motion in limine.