Reyes v. Oropesa

Opinion

1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ~ l 2

HENRY N. REYES, ) DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM0834Lf:(} ) Plaintiff, ) 5 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER: Defendant's 6 I ) Motion to Modify Child Custody; In re vs. ) Contempt; and Motion for Production of 7 ) Documents 8 SOFIA B. OROPESA, ~ Defendant. ____________________________ )) 9

11 INTRODUCTION

12 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on Defendant Sofia B. 13 Oropesa's Motion to Modify Child Custody; In Re Contempt; and Motion for Production of 14 Documents on October 17, 2013. Defendant appeared pro se. Plaintiff Henry N. Reyes was 15 represented by Attorney Ronald P. Moroni. Following the hearing, the Court took the matter 16

17 under advisement. Upon review of the evidence, written arguments, and legal authorities

18 presented by both parties, the Court hereby issues this Decision and Order DENYING the 19 Defendant's Motion to Modify Custody and Motion to Hold Plaintiff in Contempt of Court, and 20 GRANTING Defendant's Motion for Production of Documents. 21

22 BACKGROUND

23 This matter arises from a Complaint for Dissolution of Marriage filed on December 20,

24 2010. Bench trial commenced on December 15,2011 and continued on December 21,2011 and 25 December 22, 2011. Final arguments were scheduled for January 24, 2012, and continued on 26 February 15, 2012 and February 23, 2012. Defendant was represented by Attorney Ryan F. 27

28 Kaiser at the commencement of this instant case through bench trial. On April 9, 2012, the

DM0834-IO: Reyes v. Oropesa Page I of3 Defendant's Motions to Modify Cusotdy: In Re Contempt: and Production of Documents

ORIGINAL Com1 issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, granting the divorce based on 1

2 irreconcilable differences. To date, Defendant refuses to sign Interlocutory Judgment of

3 Divorce and Final Divorce Decree. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Motion to Modify Child Custody 6 Defendant moves the Court to modify child custody in the above entitled case. 7

8 Defendant argues, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to exercise physical custody rights. Defendant

9 specifically argues that Plaintiff has been separated from his son since April 2011. See Defs. 10 Mot. to Modify Child Custodv at 1 (Aug. 20, 2013). Defendant further argues that she was 11 deprived of housing allowance for her son as well as access to a military installation. Therefore, 12

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs "mindset and decision has shown that he is unfit to be a 13

14 parent." Id. at 1-2. 15 At the motion hearing held on October 17, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel informed the Court 16 that the issue of custody and visitation has already been all worked out. Transcript JDAASCRA 17 (10/17/2013) at 10:15:14. As a result, Plaintiff was to immediately exercise visitation and the 18

19 child is to be returned back to his mother on January 22, 2014. The Court is satisfied having

20 reviewed the matter that Plaintiff has exercised his visitation rights. Accordingly, the Motion to 21 Modify Child Custody is DENIED. The Court's prior Orders relative to custody and visitation 22 arrangements will remain in effect. 23 Motion to Hold Plaintiff in Contempt of Court 24

25 Defendant also moves the Court to hold Plaintiff in contempt of Court. Defendant

26 argues that Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's prior Order. Defendant cites to the 27

DM0834-I 0: Reyes v. Oropesa Page 2 of 3 Defendant's Motions to Modify Cusotdy; In Re Contempt; and Production of Documents !;; ~ ~ "4 Court's February 28, 2011 Order where the Court ordered the Plaintiff to provide Defendant

with a Letter of Agency pennitting her to obtain military benefits on behalf of their minor child.

Guam law provides that "[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court;" is deemed contempt of court pursuant to Title 7 GCA § 3410l(a)(5). The Court having

5 consiC.ered the matter on file herein and deeming itself fully advised, DENIJES Defendant's

6 Motion to Hold Plaintiff in Contempt. The Court also reviewed a similar motion filed by the Defendant following the October 17, 2013, and does not find the alleged actions to rise to 7 contempt of Court. Accordingly, Defendant's October 22,2013 motion is DENIED. 8 Motion for Production of Documents 9 On August 20, 2013, Defendant filed a request for production of documents. 10 Defendant relies on the Court's earlier granting that Plaintiff provide her with certain 11

12 documents in support of her Motion to Set Aside Interlocutory Divorce Decree. At the motion

13 hearing, it was brought to this Court's attention that most of the documents have already been 14 provided to Defendant. The problem stemmed from Defendant's inability to retrieve the 15 documents via electronic format. Therefore, the Court having considered the matter on file 16

herein and deeming itself fully advised, GRANTS her request, however, finds that most if not 17

18 all the requested documents have already been provided to her.

19 CONCLUSION 20 By preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court issues 21 its Decision consistent with this Order herein. 22

23 Further proceedings is scheduled for~at~ .. .Y1A • ~,§Q~r~~&~JtEhis ~' 2014. 24 7 day of 25

HONORABLE ANITA A. SUKOLA 28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam Reyes v. Oropesa -~\ Page 3 of3 Defendant's Motions to Modify Cusotdy; In Re Contempt; and Production of Documents