Court Opinion

ID: 9783822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:09:30.919089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:36.576828
License: Public Domain

KELLER, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Respectfully, I dissent in part and concur in part. Having reviewed the entire proceeding, it is my opinion that the court had sufficient evidence of substance to support its ruling. Therefore, I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Yusufs request to call Crank to testify.
The court had reserved fifteen minutes for a hearing, which it extended to forty-eight minutes. During that hearing, the court heard direct and cross-examination testimony from Nicole and Yusuf and examined exhibits which included e-mail between the parties and pictures of the minor child’s burn injury. In addition to the aforementioned, the court directly questioned both parties.
Based on the evidence, the court noted it could not be completely certain who perpetrated the injury upon the eleven-month-old child. However, the court also noted that Yusufs testimony regarding the timing of the injury and his response to it raised doubts as to his credibility, and that Nicole’s testimony on those issues was more credible. Thus, there was nothing in the trial court’s decision that was unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary, or capricious. Furthermore, because there was a significant amount of evidence of substance, it was within the court’s discretion to rule that testimony from Crank was not relevant.
I agree with the majority’s sound analysis and holdings on the other issues raised by Yusuf. However, for the reasons outlined above, I disagree with their holding regarding the issue of Crank’s testimony. Therefore, I would completely affirm the findings of the trial court and the entry of the amended DVO.