Court Opinion

ID: 9893233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 15:09:17.552323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:11.733615
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                  CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                       OCTOBER 26, 2023
                                                                   STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                               2023 ND 200

Abel Perez Padilla,                                   Plaintiff and Appellant
     v.
Kaiyla Marie Klimpel,                                Defendant and Appellee
     and
State of North Dakota,                       Statutory Real Party in Interest

                              No. 20230099

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial
District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rina Morales-Holmes (argued) and Kyle R. Craig (appeared), Minot, ND, for
plaintiff and appellant.

Kaiyla M. Klimpel, Minot, ND, defendant and appellee.
                           Padilla v. Klimpel, et al.
                                No. 20230099

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Abel Perez Padilla appeals from a district court order denying his motion
to modify primary residential responsibility for the child he has with Kaiyla
Klimpel. Padilla argues the court erred in denying his motion because there
was evidence showing a material change in circumstances and the court’s
findings are clearly erroneous. After a review of the record, we conclude the
court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and we are not left with a definite
and firm conviction a mistake has been made. See Scott v. Scott, 2021 ND 128,
¶ 7, 962 N.W.2d 408.

[¶2] Perez Padilla further argues the district court erred in finding
modification was not necessary to serve the best interests of the child. Because
we have concluded the court did not clearly err in finding no material change
in circumstances is dispositive of the appeal, we need not address the court’s
findings on whether modification of primary residential responsibility serves
the best interests of the child. See id. at ¶ 13 (concluding it was unnecessary
for the district court to consider whether a change in primary residential
responsibility would serve the children’s best interests because the court found
no material change in circumstances occurred). We summarily affirm under
N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                       1