Cited by

¶ 18 (App. 2009); ¶ 18 (App. 2020) (Whether imposed by the court or agreed to by the parties, the parenting provisions of a decree or other order represent a snapshot of the child’s best interests and form the baseline from which future courts assess whether a material change of circumstances has occurred.).

I. May Order ¶10 “[A] court may modify a parenting plan only if it first finds a material change of the circumstances affecting the child’s welfare since the last court order.” ¶ 1 (App. 2020).

¶10 When presented with a request to modify legal decision- making or parenting-time provisions, the superior court must first “ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020).

proceed to determine whether [a modification] will be in the best interests of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION ¶11 When considering a petition to modify legal decision-making authority, the superior court first considers “whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) ().

345–46, ¶¶ 14, 25 (App. 2020).

¶10 To modify parents’ legal decision making and parenting time, “the superior court must engage in a two-stage inquiry.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020)..

DISCUSSION ¶7 When considering a petition to modify legal decision-making and parenting time orders, the superior court must first determine “‘whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).

previously disclosed Police Reports as first-time knowledge or newly discovered evidence.” We review de novo “[w]hether the superior court afforded [Father] due process.” ¶ 28 (App. 2020).

¶ 14 (App. 2020) (citation omitted).

When considering a modification petition, the court considers whether there has been “a material change of the circumstances affecting the child’s welfare since the last court order.” ¶ 1 (App. 2020).

We review due process challenges de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2020), and will reverse a decision for a due process violation only if the error prejudices a party, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).

¶9 Husband claims Wife violated his due process rights by “clearly” and “intentional[ly]” deceiving him “into believing that his spousal maintenance [obligation] would be limited to only one year.” We review due process challenges de novo, ¶ 28 (App. 2020), and we will reverse a decision based on a due process violation only if the error prejudices a party, ¶ 26 (App. 2014).

611(a)(2); ¶29 (App. 2020) (explaining courts have discretion to decide “whether additional time is necessary”).

¶ 14 (App. 2020) (quotation omitted).

See, ¶ 15 (App. 2020) (noting the relocated child “has and will continue to engage in new activities, form new relationships, and face new challenges” (emphasis added)).

“First, the court must ascertain whether there has been a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child.” ¶ 14 (App. 2020).