Allen v. Allen

Opinion

JElLED SUPERiOR COURT OF GUAM 2022JAN20 PM t I CLERK OF COURT 2

BY:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 5

6 JAMIE DEE ALLEN,

Plaintiff, Case No. DM0424-1$ $ vs. DECISION AND ORDER 9 (Motion for Clarification) SHALYN F. ALLEN, 10 Defendant.

13 INTRODUCTION 14 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto E. Tolentino on October 28, 2021, for 15 further proceedings on Shalyn F. Allen’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Clarification, filed on 16

17 February 15, 2021. Attorney Catherine Bejerana Camacho represents Jamie Dee Allen

18 (“Plaintiff’). Attorney Gary W.F. Gumataotao represents Defendant. Having considered the

19 arguments and the applicable law, the Court hereby holds that the Court granted Defendant’s

20 Motion for Treatment and ordered the children attend counseling with Client Services. 21 BACKGROUND 22 The factual background of this matter was previously set out by the Court in a Decision 23 and Order issued on February 12, 2021. The following explains the relevant history of the 24 instant case that led to Defendant’s Motion for Clarification. 25 On November 30, 2020, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Motion to Modify Custody and 26 for Treatment. Def.’s Ex Farte Mot. to Modify Custody and for Treatment, Nov. 30, 2021. 27 Page 1 of 3 . 1 Plaintiff filed an opposition, which opposed a modification of custody but agreed to treatment 2 on the condition that the parties reach an agreement with respect to the therapist and the 3 parameters of treatment. Opp’n. to Def.’s Mot. to Modify Custody & Response to Def.’s Mot.

for Treatment, Dec. 28, 2020. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Minute

6 Entry, Jan. 14, 2021. Following the evidentiary hearing—but prior to issuing a decision on the

7 issue of custody—the Court ordered the children be evaluated and counseled by the Judiciary

8 of Guam’s Client Services and Family Counseling Division (“Client Services”). Order, Jan. 9 27, 2021. Subsequently, the Court issued an order titled “Decision and Order Re: Defendant’s 10 Ex Pane Motion to Modify Custody and for Treatment,” which stated that Defendant’s motion 11 was denied. Dec. and Order Re: Def.’s Ex Parte Mot. to Modify Custody and for Treatment, 12 Feb. 12, 2021. The february 12, 2021 Decision and Order only discussed custody and did not 13 address the issue of treatment. Defendant filed the instant motion, seeking clarification as to 14 whether the Court’s January 27, 2021 order for treatment remained valid despite the 15

16 subsequent Decision and Order that stated the motion was denied. Mot. for Clarification, Feb.

17 15, 2021. The Court took the motion under advisement during further proceedings on October

18 28, 2021. Minute Entry, Oct. 28, 2021.

19 DISCUSSION 20 Rule 60(b) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to provide a 21 party with clarification of any decision and order. Defendant seeks clarification regarding the 22 Decision and Order the Court issued on February 12, 2021. Defendant asserts “[t}he portion 23 addressing the Custody modification request is clear” and therefore only seeks clarification as 24 to treatment. Mot. for Clarification at 1. Defendant further asserts that the Court appears to 25 grant the request for treatment by referring the children to Dr. Wycoff, but the Court’s stated 26

27 Page2of3 1 denial of the motion contradicts the referral. Id. Thus, the contradiction constitutes an 2 ambiguity. Id.

After reviewing the record, the Court holds that the Order issued by the Court on 4 January 27, 2021 granted Defendant’s Motion for Treatment. That Order states: “. . .the Court

6 ordered the children. . . to be evaluated and counseled by Dr. Wycoff at Client Services on the

7 issues raised with reports to be rendered to the court.” Order, Jan. 27, 2021. The Court

8 intended the Order issued on January 27, 2021 to be a disposition of Defendant’s Motion for

Treatment, and the Decision and Order issued on February 12, 2021 to be a disposition of 10 Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Custody. The Court did not address Defendant’s 11 Motion for Treatment in the Decision and Order issued on February 12, 2021 because of the 12 preexisting Order for the children to attend counseling with Dr. Wycoff at Client Services. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the above reasons, the Court holds that the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for 15

16 Treatment.

18 2fl 19 SO ORDERED, this day of_________________ 2022.

23 .RVIcE HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO I acknowledge that an eIectronc g Supenor Court of Guam 24 copy of the original was emaiIed to:

-

26 Date:______

27 Page 3 of 3