Cited by

“Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

Due process requires that a party receive “notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (quotation omitted).

“Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).

On the record presented, Hoenack has offered no evidence to rebut the directive that a “judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” ¶ 22 (App. 2011).

¶ 16 (App. 2009); ¶ 11 (App. 2011).

Sec., ¶ 12 (App. 2002); ¶ 11 (App. 2011).

And we have previously held in the child support context that it is error to enter modifications without “allowing the parties to gather and present their evidence.” ¶ 14 (App. 2012); –06, ¶¶ 17–19 (App. 2011) (vacating child support modification because court “specifically advised that it would not be considering child support” at trial).

“Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” and “affords a party the opportunity to offer evidence and confront adverse witnesses.” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (citation omitted).

We review the allocation of travel expenses for an abuse of discretion and will affirm if the superior court’s ruling is within “the bounds of reason.” 205, ¶¶ 9, 11 (App. 2011) (quotations omitted).

¶ 1 (App. 2011), where this court reversed the superior court’s modification of a child support order on the basis that mother received inadequate notice that the court would address the child support issue at trial.

–06, ¶¶ 16–19 (App. 2011).

“Due process entitles a party to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).

8 JOHNSON v. ESPINOZA Decision of the Court ¶21 Nor does the record support Mother’s assertion of judicial bias based upon the family court’s determination that “Mother has attempted to block Father’s parenting time.” “A trial judge is presumed to be free of bias and prejudice.” ¶ 22 (App. 2011).

The court abuses its discretion when the record, “viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision, is devoid of competent evidence to support[] the decision.” ¶ 13 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 5 (1999)).

We generally presume the family court is 6 THORNBURG v. THORNBURG Decision of the Court both fair and impartial; therefore, “[a] party must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the judge was, in fact, biased.” ¶ 22 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 38 (App. 2005)).

¶9 “[D]ue process entitles parties to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard,” ¶ 10 (2017), and “the opportunity to offer evidence and confront adverse witnesses,” ¶ 18 (App. 2011).

entry of default judgment is circumscribed by due process considerations,” id., which entitle a party to “notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner,” ¶ 18 (App. 2011) ( ¶ 16 (App. 2006)).