1999-83901-as petition for review kansas supreme court denial order
TRANSCRIPT
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 1/9
/
UPREKE COURT ORDER DISTI • CAS S NO.
I N T H Il SUP R Il K Il COURT
o F T H Il S TAT Il O.F K A N S A S
••••• FLAT-FILIl-COPY *.***
IN THB MATTIlR OF TBIl KARRIAGIl OF
HALLIlCK RICHARDSON, RIlSPONDIlNT,
AND
CLAUDINIl DOMBROWSKI, PIlTITIONllR.
NO. 1999-83901-A8
•
YOU ARB HIlRBBY NOTIFIIlD OF THIl FOLLOWING ACTION TAItIlNBY TBIl COURT,
PIlTITION FOR RIlVIEW BY CLAUDINIl DOMBROWSKI.
CONSIDIlRIlDBY TBIl COURT AND DIlNIIlD.
DATIl, la/al/1999. '
C AR OL G . G RI lI lN
CLIlRIt
C O P I E S t o C O U N S E Lvon lifl o?-
-. . ---. ~- . --------------------------- --- ..------------
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 2/9
No. 99-83,901
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
IN THE MATIER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
HALLECK RICHARDSON, Responden t,
AND
CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI,Petitioner.
ORDER
The petitioner's and respondent's responses to this court's order to show
cause are noted. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. The issues raised
in the petition have been addressed and decided by this court in In the Matter of the
Marriage of Halleck Richardson and Claudine Dombrowski, Case Number 80,304
(unpublished opinion filed October 23, 1998, rev. denied December 22, 1998). The
petitioner's response addresses the merits of the direct appeal in Case Number 99-.
83,905. This order does not preclude the petitioner from raising issues that pertain
specifically to the order of June 28, 1999, in the direct appeal; this court will not,
however, rehear issues it has already decided.
DATED: October 7,1999
l 'o P \t S \0 t O U I S ilu <~10 l~
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 3/9
No. 99-83901
THE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF KANSAS
In the Matter of the Marriage of '.
'" Halleck Richardson,
Petitioner-Appellee
and
Claudine Dombrowski,
Respondent-Appellant
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
Appeal from the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas
Case No. 960217
Honorabldames P. Buche1e, Honorable Richard Anderson, Judges
Rebecca A King #16772
Riling, Burkhead &Nitcher, Chtd
808 Massachusetts SI.
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 841-4700 c
Attorney for Appellant
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 4/9
Table of Contents
Prayer for Review , 1
Statement of the Issue 2
Statement of Faels 3
Arguments and Authorities 3
Issue. The best interests of the minor child, and the constitutional rights of both the child
and her mother. demand that a stay or other relief from the onders of the district court
that are the subject of this appeal be Issued.
Greene y. Greene. 201 Kan. 701, 443 P.2d 1356 (1980) 3. 4
In Re Marriage of Burness. 51 Cal.Rptr2d 444. 913 P.2d 473 1996) 4
D'Onofrio y. p'Onofrio, 365 A.2d 27 (N.J. Sup.Ct.Ch.Div. 1976) : 5
Carlson y, Carison, 8 Kan.App.2d 564, 661 P.2d 833 (1983) 5
LaGrone by Bridoerv, LaGrone, 238 Kan. 630, 713 P.2d 474 (1986) 5
ConClusion......... 5
•
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 5/9
No. 99-83901
IN TIlE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
In the Matter of the Marriage of
Halleck Richardson,
Petitioner- Appellee
and
Claudine Dombrowski,
Respondent-Appellant
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REVIEW
Prayer for Review
Comes Now the Appellant herein, Claudine Dombrowski, by and through her
counsel, Rebecca A. King, Attorney at Law, and respectfully requests that this Court
review and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals denying the petition for writ of
habeas corpus and motion for stay of proceedings pending this appeal that were filed by,
Appellant in this case.
.Date of Decision
October 7, 1999.
Statement of the Issue,
Issue. The best interests of the minor child, and the constitutional rights of both the
child and her mother, demand that a stay or other relief from the orders of the
district court that are the subject of this appeal be issued.
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 6/9
Statement of Facts
On September 24, 1999, the Court of Appeals, concerned that the issues raised in
appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus herein were governed by the unpublished
decision of this Court in Case No. 80304 (same caption), ordered the parties to show
cause why Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed.
Appellant's response to the show cause order was filed on September 30, 1999, but, on
October 7, 1999, the Court of Appeals entered an order denying the pelition. However,
contrary to the findings of the Court of Appeals, the issues brought before this Court in
appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus were not addressed or decided in the earlier
appeal.
On June 28, 1999, the district court entered its Order to Enforce Prior Order;
Order Establishing Supervised Visitation; Order for Hearing on Child Support; Order on
Motion to Change Venue; and Order Amending Prior Decision Regarding Surname. This
appeal, including the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed herein, seeks to challenge
these orders, which had not even been entered when the earlier appeal was decided.
According to the decision in Case No. 80304, appellant argued then that her constitutional
rights were violated by the district court's arbitrary ruling that it was in the best interests of
the child for her to retumto Topeka, Kansas. But the Court of Appeals limited its inquiry
to the question of whether the districi 'court abused its discretion or failed to consider the
best interests of the parties' minor child, and did not address the constitutionality of the
district court's orders. Appellant is entitled to have this Court immediately address her
claim that the restraints imposed upon her by the orders entered by the district court on
June 28, 1999, are unconstitutional.
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 7/9
Arguments and Authorities
Issue, The best interests of the minor child, and the constitutional rights of both the
child and her mother, demand that a stay or other relief from the orders of the
district court that are the subject of this appeal be issued.
In this appeal Appellant challenges the legality and propriety of the June 28, 1999,
orders entered in the district court concerning custody, visitation, and residence of the
parties with their minor child, Rikki Dombrowski. These orders cannot be interpreted by
any reasonable person to be consistent with the best interests of the minor child of the
legal rights of the parties. See Greene v. Greene. 20 I Kan. 70 I, 443 P.2d 1356 (J 980).
Appellant has gainful employment in Lamed, Kansas, as a licensed practical nurse
that is unavailable to her in any other location due to a foot disability that affects her
strength and mobility. Appellant owns a home in Lamed, Kansas. Rikki is in the midst of
receiving specialized medical care for problems with her ears in Lamed, Kansas.
Appellant has been seriously harassed and abused by Appellee, in the past, including being
the victim of an armed assault and battery, that led to the issuance of restraining orders
against Appellee. After Appellant moved from Topeka to Lamed. Kansas, the district
court recognized that the result was a reduction in the physical violence that has
characterized the relationship between the parties. The district court's orders for visitation
visitation require that the Appellee's visits with the minor child occur at and under the•
supervision of the staff of YMCA Safe Visit location, and Appellant has assumed and lived
up to the responsibility, at her own expense, of traveling from Lamed to Topeka to bring,
the minor child to her visitations with Appellee.
Nevertheless, the district court has ordered Appellant and the minor child to move
their residence from Lamed back to Topeka. According to the district court, if Appellant
does not comply with this order, sole residential custody of the minor child will be
awarded to Appellee, a person who is still not allowed to visit the child without
supervision, has failed to make regular child support payments, and has a history of
3
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 8/9
alcohol abuse that necessitated an order from the district prohibiting Appellee from
consuming alcohol within 4 hours of or during the visits. The district court compounded
the dangers posed by Appellee to Appellant and the minor child by issuing an additional
order prohibiting Appellant from calling law enforcement for help or protection from
Appellee without first consulting the case manager who was appointed by the district
court to handle visitation and other arrangements. The legality of this order was never
addressed at all by this Court in Case No. 80304.
Appellant has established a residence in Topeka, Kansas, and she has informed the
district court case manager of that fact. Appellant has not yet given up her job and home
in Lamed, Kansas, but soon she will have no choice, because her employer will not wait
long, and she cannot afford to maintain two households. Consequently, the denial of
Appellant's request for a stay and/or a writ of habeas corpus renders this appeal moot and
Appellant's right to appeal meaningless because she will have had to either give up her
house, her livelihood and her relatively abuse-free life in Lamed, or custody of Rikki.
Nevertheless, the district court has ordered Appellant and the minor child to move their
residence from Lamed back to Topeka.
Appellant is entitled to the relief she seeks from the illegal restraint on her liberty
that the orders of the district court impose. Most of the case law relevant to the
determination of the best interests of the child in terms of residence deals with custodial
parents who want to move to another state. Greene v. Greene, 201 Kan. 701, 443 P.2d
1356 (1980). Even in those cases most states attach a favorable presumption to the
desires of the custodial parent. In Re Marriage of Burgess, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 913 P.2d
473 (1996) [custodial parent has presumptive right to move child against wishes of other
parent]. Moreover, the appropriate analysis looks at the real advantage to the family unit
4
8/7/2019 1999-83901-As Petition for Review Kansas Supreme Court Denial Order
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1999-83901-as-petition-for-review-kansas-supreme-court-denial-order 9/9
F A X N O , 7 8 5 8 4 3 0 1 6 1 p , 0 2 / 0 2
'
that will resull from the move. Q'D.J.IjllljoV p'Ogoll1o, 365 i\.2d 27 (N.J. Sup.etCh.Div.
' ' '11 I'c •.•ons have a wnstitutillinal right to li'ef!lytnIvel and move their residence
from onc slntc 10 anot~, '" 10 a fmugn country, and that right Is unfeltcre<1except for
limilati~,,,,,on an aduh's risittlO take their oIlild wilh m e m , ogaill1t lhe withes oftha othor
parcnL (',rlsoll v (arlH!.\!. 8 Kan.App.2d ~64, 661 P.2d 833 (1983), And Appellant dQe$
nOIseck 10 reside with her child ill another state or couJIIIY,only in another city within the
st.le of KaoSl\l\ In considering the best intcr8llU of the child, decllions about re1ldency,
muSl 00 lell to Ihe Pllf'Cntwho hIlS physical alstoc!y, bOClluatthe less in~ence and
inlerrruplion of a child'. environ,nonl is gencmty. better for the child's weIJ-beitlll. S«
LaGrQne by Uriduc:r y, ~Jlll, 238 Kan. 630, 713 P.2d 474 (1986). Under theae
circumslances. an order to move back to Topeka infiinlles on Appellant', consitutional
rights 10travel. to beslow Ille benefits of a w e envtrotlll1llllton R1k1ci .
conc lus i on
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant prays thaI this Court review and revers. the
deci.;on ufth. C\lun of Appeals and granlthe reli.fahe seeks.
(' O!tI!iCl\teof $mice
1 hercb} ccnily lhal live lrue lind corroc,t copies o f th e IOTellQingPetition fo rR~vkw •.•.ere placed i,l lhe lJnhcd SWlIltlMalls, postage prepaid. addr••• ed to [){In R.
I Joi l inu l l. I ! sq . . Ilollillltli and Hof f inan , 112 W . 71h51.. Garden Suite. Topeka . KS C 1 O O O 3 .('In thi, lllh dll) or
N,wcmlnrr.1999.