give the jury a proper limiting instruction when requested. United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 845-16 (10th Cir.1999). Here, all four requirements were satisfied. First, evidence of Alford’s 2002 conviction and 2003 arrest for domestic abuse of Ms. Fuston-Lounds was offered not to show his character, but for the proper purpose of rebutting Ms. Fuston-Lounds’ claim for damages. See Tanberg, 401 F.3d at 1166 (“When a party opens the door to a topic, the admission of rebuttal evidence on that topic becomes permissible.”). Second, the evidence was relevant because Ms. Fuston-Lounds put the nature and quality of her relationship with Alford at issue by claiming damages for grief and loss of companionship. See, e.g., Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1048 (10th Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>). In this regard, the fact that the abuse
holding that parents of minor child waived physicianpatient privilege of child by putting childs medical condition at issue holding a fathers duty to support his minor child did not include a duty to contribute to the cost of the minor childs college education holding that evidence of pornographic images found throughout decedents home and accessible to his minor child was relevant to the question of childs damages for loss of companionship holding that parents of adult child may recover for loss of comfort and companionship of adult child where they were next of kin under wda holding that damages in a fela action are limited strictly to the financial loss thus sustained overturning a jury award for the loss of society and companionship