Palomo v Bustamante [2019] GUSC 5 (7 June 2019)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

MELANIE RENEE PALOMO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ALFREDO BUSTAMANTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Filed: June 7, 2019

Cite as: 2019 Guam 5

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA15-027
Superior Court Case No.: DM0291-07

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on November 22, 2016
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Alfredo Bustamante, pro se (briefed) 929 S. Marine Corps Dr. Tamuning, GU 96913 Curtis C. Van de veld, Esq. (argued) The Vandeveld Law Offices, P.C. 123 Hernan Cortes Ave. Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Daniel S. Somerfleck, Esq. Somerfleck & Associates, PLLC Nelson Bldg. 866 Rte. 7, Ste. 102 Maina, GU 96932

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.^[1]

PER CURIAM:
[1] Defendant-Appellant Alfredo Bustamante appeals from a trial court judgment awarding sole legal and physical custody of his minor child to the child’s mother, Plaintiff-Appellee Melanie Palomo. Bustamante argues the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sole custody to Palomo, violated his due process rights by failing to timely rule on his motion to modify custody and by awarding custody to Palomo when he was not found to be unfit, discriminated against him based on sex, and erred in not finding that the child was subjected to “parental alienation syndrome.” For the reasons below, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] The facts are extensive. Defendant-Appellant Alfredo Bustamante and Plaintiff-Appellee Melanie Palomo had a child together, F.B., in November 2006. After a bench trial and per agreement of the parties, the Superior Court awarded the parties joint legal and joint physical custody of F.B. Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 77 at 1 (Custody Decision, May 23, 2008). Palomo was granted primary residential custody during F.B.’s “tender years,” with more custodial days and nights than was granted to Bustamante. Id. at 1-2. The court noted that the custodial and visitation order needed to be “flexible enough to consider increases in time spent with each parent, and expand[] as the child grows and matures.” Id. at 1.
[3]