Opinion ID: 2611475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Post-Judgment Modification Orders

Text: The stepfather, R.J., argues that the superior court erred in 1997 by: (1) entering the order for expedited consideration without allowing him a reasonable time to oppose the motion; (2) amending the order for expedited consideration based on an ex parte contact with J.W.'s counsel; (3) modifying the judgment pending the outcome of a motion for a stay; (4) treating the motion for stay on appeal as a motion for modification; (5) admitting into evidence Dr. Marvin Bergeson's testimony about the child's identification of the perpetrator, Dr. Bergeson's report, and the GAL's testimony about the child's statements; (6) basing the January 1997 modification on issues not identified by the superior court before the hearing; and (7) permanently modifying the 1996 judgment without proper notice and hearing. The father, J.W., argues not that the orders were entered without procedural error, but that any errors are mooted by correcting the error of awarding custody to the stepfather in August 1996. Our resolution of issues concerning the August 1996 judgment moots any need to consider questions about the procedural adequacy of the 1997 orders. [2]