Court Opinion

ID: 9796730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:03:38.00339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:06.556256
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Chief Justice,
dissents, in which GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
[¶18] I respectfully dissent. Even if we assume that the process of petitioning the district court for modification of the custody, support, or visitation provisions of a prior decree or order is a "special proceeding" for purposes of the rule, I believe it takes W.R.A.P. 1.05 to unreasonable limits to declare that, in one modification proceeding, the losing party may appeal each decision, one at a time, if that is the way the court issues its orders (if child support and visitation also are fundamental rights). Beyond that, the court's order in the present case is, on its face, an interlocutory order that is not appealable because it specifically provides for further consideration of child support. This appeal should be dismissed because it is not an appeal from a final appealable order under the common sense meaning of W.R.A.P. 1.05.