Opinion ID: 2538252
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elizabeth's violation of this Court's March 14, 2002 Order bars her from appealing the issues addressed in the District Court's August 19, 2002 Memorandum Decision.

Text: On February 22, 2002, Elizabeth filed in this Court a motion to suspend the appeal until the district court decision on appeal was entered. As grounds for the motion, she claimed [t]he District Court has not yet made a decision on the appeal from the Magistrate's Order Modifying Custody/Visitation dated March 30th, 2001. This Court granted Elizabeth's motion on March 14, 2002. The Order suspended the appeal until a decision is entered by the District Court with regard to the appeal from the Magistrate Order of March 30, 2001. The Order further provided that Elizabeth shall file an Amended Notice of Appeal from that Order within fourteen (14) days from the date of its filing in the District Court at which time this appeal shall proceed unless otherwise provided by an Order of this Court. On August 19, 2002, the district court filed its decision which affirmed the magistrate's denial of her motion for child support and/or compensation for providing childcare. The district court concluded that if Elizabeth's motion was a motion to alter or amend the divorce decree, it was untimely pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(e). Further, she had not shown the parties shared custody of the child. Finally, the motion to modify child support was not based on a material, substantial and permanent change in circumstances. The district court also affirmed the magistrate's modification of visitation. The district court found that there existed substantial evidence that the daily exchanges of custody resulted in confrontation between Reed and Elizabeth. The district court also found there was substantial evidence that the continued disruption and lack of routine in childcare was not in the child's best interest. Regardless of the merits of the decisions, Elizabeth did not amend her notice of appeal to add a challenge to the district court's August 19, 2002, decision which violated this Court's March 14, 2002, order, and she is barred from challenging the decision of the district court on appeal to this Court.