Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Michael and Mallory Nay, guardians of JDV, sought to terminate the parental rights of JDV’s natural father, Michael Session, alleging he had left JDV in their care without support or communication for over a year, except for a few incidental visits. The district court granted the Nays' petition and terminated Mr. Session’s parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i). Mr. Session appealed the decision.The District Court of Carbon County initially granted the Nays guardianship of JDV in 2021, with Mr. Session’s consent, and ordered the Nays to facilitate monthly visitation between Mr. Session and JDV. In 2023, the Nays petitioned to terminate Mr. Session’s parental rights, citing his lack of support and minimal contact with JDV. The district court found that Mr. Session had not provided financial support or maintained meaningful communication with JDV, deeming his few visits as incidental.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that judicial estoppel did not prevent the Nays and the guardian ad litem from arguing that terminating Mr. Session’s parental rights was in JDV’s best interests, despite their earlier stance during the guardianship proceedings. The court found that the Nays had fulfilled their obligation to facilitate visitation and that Mr. Session’s limited contacts with JDV were incidental and insufficient to prevent termination under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i). The court also concluded that Mr. Session’s substantive due process rights were not violated, as the Nays had made reasonable efforts to facilitate visitation, and Mr. Session had failed to maintain a relationship with JDV. View "In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: Jdv, a Minor Child" on Justia Law

A couple, married in 2001, had three children and lived in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The husband worked in his family's steel business and later managed his own company, while the wife initially stayed home with the children and later took over her father's consulting firm. They separated in October 2020, with the husband moving to Colorado and the wife staying in the marital home with the children. The wife filed for divorce in September 2021, and the husband counterclaimed. By May 2022, their eldest child turned 18, and by July 2022, their middle child began living with the husband.The District Court of Laramie County held a two-day bench trial in January 2024. The court granted the divorce, awarded shared legal custody of the children, and split physical custody. The husband was ordered to pay $67.79 in monthly child support. The court divided the marital property, valuing the husband's business interests and awarding the marital home to the wife, along with all associated debts. The husband was ordered to pay the wife $400,000 to achieve an equitable distribution of assets. The wife appealed, challenging the denial of retroactive child support and the valuation of the marital home.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case. It found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying retroactive child support, noting that both parties had jointly provided for the children's needs during the separation. The court also upheld the district court's valuation of the marital home, affirming that the mortgage was accounted for in the property division. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions. View "Lewis v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Katrina Danforth appealed the termination of her parental rights to her child, SLD. The case began when Ryan Hansen, the child's father, filed a petition to terminate Danforth's parental rights, citing her felony conviction for a murder-for-hire plot against him. Danforth counterclaimed, seeking to terminate Hansen's parental rights, and requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) for SLD. The Department of Family Services conducted a social study, which Danforth argued was inadequate because it did not include her input.The District Court of Sheridan County held a bench trial and terminated Danforth's parental rights. The court found that Hansen adequately represented SLD's interests and that a GAL was unnecessary. Danforth's counterclaim was dismissed without a separate evidentiary hearing, as she did not present evidence to support it during the trial. Danforth appealed, arguing that the social study was prejudicial, the denial of a GAL was erroneous, her counterclaim should not have been dismissed without a hearing, and that the termination of her parental rights unjustly extended her punishment for her past crime.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court found that the social study complied with statutory requirements and did not prejudice Danforth, as she had the opportunity to testify about her situation. The court also held that the district court did not err in finding a GAL unnecessary, as Hansen adequately represented SLD's interests. The dismissal of Danforth's counterclaim without a separate hearing was upheld because she failed to prosecute it during the trial. Finally, the court concluded that the termination of Danforth's parental rights was based on statutory grounds and SLD's best interests, not as an extension of her criminal punishment. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights To SLD v. Hansen" on Justia Law

In 2023, Basin Authority, a Wyoming Child Support Agency, notified Rodolfo P. Munoz that he was in arrears on his child support obligation and began garnishing his social security. Mr. Munoz filed a complaint against the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS), and some of its employees, as well as Basin Authority and several of its employees. He alleged breach of contract and violations of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Mr. Munoz’s complaint after a hearing.The district court of Big Horn County granted the motions to dismiss filed by the State Defendants and the Basin Authority Defendants. The court found that Mr. Munoz had not made allegations against the State Defendants and that they were not subject to suit under § 1983 because they are not “persons” within the meaning of the statute. The court also found that a breach of contract claim is not actionable under § 1983 and that the alleged agreement was void and unenforceable. Mr. Munoz’s objection and response to the State Defendants’ proposed order on the motion to dismiss and his motion for reconsideration were denied.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court’s decision. The court noted that Mr. Munoz failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and did not present cogent arguments supported by pertinent authority. The court emphasized that even pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules and present coherent arguments. The court concluded that summary affirmance was appropriate due to the deficiencies in Mr. Munoz’s brief and his failure to present relevant legal arguments. View "Munoz v. State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

A mother (TH) appeals a juvenile court's decision to change the permanency plan for her minor child (LH) from reunification to adoption. LH was taken into state custody shortly after birth due to both mother and child testing positive for opiates. The mother has another child, RH, who remained in her custody. The mother argues that the juvenile court did not consider LH's relationship with RH and that it abused its discretion by changing the plan to adoption despite her maintaining sobriety for six months.The District Court of Park County initially placed LH in the custody of the Department of Family Services (Department) and ordered the mother to abstain from controlled substances and undergo drug testing. Despite entering inpatient treatment and attending counseling, the mother continued to test positive for illegal substances, leading to suspended visitations with LH. The Department recommended changing the permanency plan to adoption after the mother failed to maintain sobriety and secure stable housing and employment.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that the juvenile court had ample evidence of LH's relationship with RH and the potential for sibling separation. The juvenile court's decision to change the permanency plan to adoption was based on the mother's failure to make sufficient progress on her case plan goals, particularly her sobriety and obtaining a stable living environment, within the statutory timeframe. The court emphasized that children have a right to stability and permanency, which outweighed the mother's progress in the months leading up to the permanency hearing.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's decision to change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, allowing the Department to cease reunification efforts. View "In re L.H. v. State" on Justia Law

A mother and father, who married in December 2021 and separated a year later, have two children (twins). The father also has three children from a previous marriage. After their separation, the mother filed for divorce, and the case went to trial to resolve issues of custody, child support, and property division. The district court granted the divorce, determined custody, ordered the father to pay child support, and divided the property.The district court awarded the parents alternating-week custody of the twins, differing from the holiday schedule for the father's children from his previous marriage. The court also granted the mother final decision-making authority regarding the twins. The father was ordered to pay child support based on the mother's income, which the court calculated using her tax returns and other financial documents. The court also divided the equity in the marital home, using an appraised value from October 2023 and the mortgage obligation from December 2022.The father appealed to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, contesting the holiday visitation schedule, the mother's final decision-making authority, the calculation of the mother's income for child support, and the division of the home equity. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's decisions. It found that the holiday visitation schedule, while different from the father's schedule with his other children, was not an abuse of discretion. The court also upheld the decision to grant the mother final decision-making authority, noting that the district court adequately explained its reasoning. The calculation of the mother's income for child support was supported by sufficient evidence, and the division of the home equity was reasonable given the evidence presented. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court's decisions were within the bounds of reason and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. View "Amadio v. Amadio" on Justia Law

The State of Wyoming filed a petition against MF (Mother) and JF (Father) on June 22, 2020, alleging neglect of their minor children, JF and TF. Following a shelter care hearing, the juvenile court removed the children from the home and placed them in foster care. After a disposition hearing, the children remained in the custody of the Department of Family Services (the Department), with a permanency plan of family reunification. On January 19, 2024, after an evidentiary permanency hearing, the juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption.The juvenile court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court noted that Mother had made some progress but ultimately failed to consistently address the children's needs and safety concerns. The court also found that the children's best interests were served by changing the permanency plan to adoption, given their progress in foster care and the lack of stability and safety in Mother's care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's decision. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption, as the Department had made reasonable efforts at reunification, which were unsuccessful. The court also found that the juvenile court's decision to cease reunification efforts with Mother was supported by Wyoming law, which allows for discontinuation of such efforts when they are inconsistent with the permanency plan.Additionally, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Mother's due process rights were not violated by the denial of a continuance of the permanency hearing or by the juvenile court's evidentiary rulings. The court found that Mother had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and the juvenile court's decisions were within the bounds of reason. The court also declined to adopt Mother's request for a change in procedures to require compliance with the Wyoming Rules of Evidence in evidentiary permanency hearings. View "In the Interest of: JF v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

Wesley Brinda (Father) petitioned for a custody modification to change the current arrangement from primary residential custody with Stacey Walker (Mother) to shared residential custody. Mother counterpetitioned to modify child support. After a two-day bench trial, the district court found no material change in circumstances to justify reopening the current custodial order but modified the child support order. Father appealed the district court’s custody decision.The District Court of Campbell County initially awarded joint legal custody with Mother having primary residential custody of the children, AB and KB, based on Father’s rotating work schedule at a coal mine. After being laid off in 2016, Father became self-employed, allowing him more flexibility. In 2017, Father successfully petitioned to modify child support but did not request a custody modification. In 2021, Father filed a petition to modify custody, citing his flexible work schedule and the children’s desire to spend more time with him. Mother denied sufficient grounds for modifying custody but sought a review of child support.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining no material change in circumstances had occurred. The court found that while the children expressed a desire to spend more time with Father, the district court reasonably concluded that these preferences, along with Father’s career change, did not justify reopening the custody order. The court also found that the parties generally co-parented well and that the district court properly considered all evidence presented. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding it reasonable and supported by the evidence. View "Brinda v. Walker" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife married in 2012 and purchased a home in Cheyenne, Wyoming, in 2014. They shared the residence and paid the mortgage from a joint account. In 2021, they refinanced the home, and in December 2021, they separated. They discussed the division of their marital property without attorneys and obtained two appraisals for the home. Wife retained counsel to draft a stipulated divorce decree, which both parties signed. The decree awarded the home to Husband, with a provision that Wife would receive half the net proceeds if the home was sold or refinanced.The District Court of Laramie County granted the divorce and entered the Stipulated Decree in June 2022. Husband refinanced the home but did not pay Wife her share of the equity. Wife filed a motion for relief, claiming the decree entitled her to half the equity regardless of whether the home was sold or refinanced. The district court granted Wife relief under Rule 60, correcting the decree to reflect that any equity recognized through sale or refinance was to be equally divided.Husband appealed, and the Wyoming Supreme Court found the decree ambiguous and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The district court held a hearing and found that both parties intended to split the equity in the home equally. The court awarded Wife half the equity, amounting to $106,323.40, and Husband appealed again.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the clarification under Rule 60(a) was appropriate and did not modify the original judgment. The court also found that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient and supported by the record. View "Van Vlack v. Van Vlack" on Justia Law

The case involves Wade Bloedow (Husband) and Nicole Maes-Bloedow (Wife), who married in 2017 and filed for divorce in 2022. The district court granted the divorce, divided the marital property, and ordered Husband to pay child support and temporary alimony. Husband appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in property distribution, income calculation for child support, and the award of temporary alimony. He also claimed the court failed to credit him for temporary payments made during the divorce proceedings.The District Court of Sweetwater County initially granted Wife temporary custody of the twins and ordered Husband to pay $3,000 per month in child and spousal support, plus the monthly payment on Wife’s vehicle. The court found Husband in contempt for not paying the full amount and allowed him to purge his contempt by selling marital assets and paying Wife from the proceeds. After a bench trial, the court awarded Wife most of the marital assets and assigned Husband most of the debts, citing his lack of credibility and fraudulent behavior in concealing and dissipating assets.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court found the district court acted within its discretion in determining the equity in the marital home and awarding Wife $75,000. It also upheld the overall property distribution, noting the district court considered the statutory factors and Husband’s fraudulent actions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the income calculation for child support, as the district court reasonably averaged Husband’s income from 2021 and 2022. The award of temporary alimony was also upheld, as the district court found Wife had a need for support and Husband had the ability to pay. Finally, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on past due support payments, finding the district court properly credited Husband for payments made during the divorce proceedings. View "Bloedow v. Maes-Bloedow" on Justia Law