)

Petitioner - Appellee, )

vs. ) Case No. 99-83905-A

)

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, )

Respondent - Appellant. )

MOTION TO STRIKE APPELANT'S

REPL Y TO APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

COMES NOW the Appellee above named, by and through counsel Donald R. Hoffman,

and moves Court to strike Appellant's Reply to Appellee's Motion for Summary Disposition.

In support thereof, the Court is shown:

1. Appellee's Motion for Summary Disposition was filed on January 12,2000 and a true
J
and correct copy of the same was forwarded on to counsel for appellant that same

day;

2. Assuming counsel for respondent receives mail on a regular basis, she would have

received appellee's motion on January 13,2000;

3. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7.041, appellant is allowed ten (10) days to file a

responsive pleading;

4. According to the certificate of service on Appellant's Reply to Appellee's Motion for

Summary Disposition, appellant's responsive pleading was not filed until January 27,

2000- at the absolute earliest, fourteen (14) days after receiving appellee's Motion for

Summary Disposition;
 Reply;

6. Further, appellant's Reply provides no insight as why the issues addressed in the

instant appeal were not dealt with~ as appellee contends in his Motion for Summary

Disposition -in the previous appeal. Appellant's Reply simply restates the

"substance" of the matters raised, no matter how obliquely, in her Brief. The

constitutional jirgument, insofar as counsel for appellee can devine from appellant's

Brief, is that the fundamental nature of the relationship between parent and child

deserves constitutional protection. Appellee does not argue that it does not. Rather,

appellee agrees with that premise but believes (a) appellee fails to present any facts

and apply them to that premise in her Brief and, most importantly, (b) that this Court

addressed any presentation of facts and application of them to the law that might have

been made in the prior appeal. Secondly, with respect to the "material change in

circumstances" argument, this Court is not presented with this issue in appellant's

Brief other than in the four~and-a-half page running statement of the law according to

the Whipp court. How this can possibly be construed as an argument central to

appe~lant' s claims is beyond couns~l for appellee. rhe issues stated in the appeal are

"best interests of the child" and "violation of the constitutional rights" of appellant

and the parties' minor child. Both issues were addressed by this court in the prior

appeal.
other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
. . d Fe8RlI\tifi?f .
I, the undersIgned, hereby certIfy that on the 32Vday of-:ftl:nuafY, 2000, I deposIted a
copy of the above and foregoing document in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed
to:

Rebecca A. King
RILING, BURKHEAD & NITCHER, Chtd.
808 Massachusetts Street
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

and that the original and three (3) copies of the same were submitted to:

Carol G. Green
Clerk of the Appellate Court
Kansas Judicial Center
301 S.W. 10th Street
Topeka, KS 66612-1507

112 West Seventh Street

Garden Suite
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Ph. (785) 233-5887
Fax (785) 233-2173
Attorneys for Appellee