Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement responded to a report that a father struck his nine-year-old daughter, LC, in the head, causing her to fall and hit the floor. LC also reported verbal abuse, fear of retaliation, and concerns about inappropriate sexual behavior by her father, who is a registered sex offender. LC had a history of sexual exploitation or abuse by family members. The Wyoming Department of Family Services removed LC from the home, and the State filed a petition alleging physical and verbal abuse. The juvenile court placed LC in the Department’s custody and ordered supervised visits. The father admitted to the abuse allegations, and LC was adjudicated as a neglected child. A case plan was developed for the father, requiring him to complete a psychosexual evaluation, attend counseling, and meet other conditions. The father failed to complete the evaluation on time and did not engage in therapy, despite multiple referrals and reminders.The District Court of Goshen County initially ordered reunification as the permanency plan. After the father eventually completed the psychosexual evaluation, the Multidisciplinary Team recommended changing the plan to adoption, citing the father’s high risk of re-offending and ongoing safety concerns. The Department reported that the father had not made meaningful progress on his case plan, and LC’s therapist testified to LC’s fear of her father. Following an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court found the Department made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification, but those efforts were unsuccessful due to the father’s lack of engagement and risk factors. The court changed the permanency plan to adoption and ceased reunification efforts.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. It held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, as the Department’s efforts were reasonable and reunification was not in LC’s best interest. The court also held that the juvenile court did not commit plain error by declining to adopt a concurrent permanency plan. The decision of the juvenile court was affirmed. View "L.C. v. State" on Justia Law

After their 2021 divorce, the parties agreed to joint custody of their two minor children and set a child support amount above the statutory presumptive level, with the father paying $1,700 per month. The father owns two businesses: an S-corporation and a limited liability company, both structured as pass-through entities, meaning their income is reported on his individual tax return. In 2023, the father sought to modify visitation due to changes in his work schedule, while the mother counter-petitioned to modify child support, ultimately dismissing her requests regarding custody and visitation.The District Court of Johnson County held a bench trial and denied the father’s request to modify visitation, finding no material change in circumstances. The court granted the mother’s petition to modify child support, calculating the father’s net monthly income at $40,110.66 and ordering him to pay $5,292 per month in child support. In reaching this figure, the court included both the pass-through income from the father’s businesses and the distributions reported on his individual tax return, as well as depreciation and amortization amounts from the LLC.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming found that the district court abused its discretion by effectively doubling the father’s income when it included both the pass-through amounts from the businesses and the distributions already reported on his tax return. The Supreme Court held that only the amounts reported on the father’s individual tax return should be included, and that adding both sources resulted in double counting. The court affirmed the inclusion of depreciation and amortization in the income calculation. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s child support order and remanded for further proceedings to recalculate the father’s net income and presumptive child support, instructing the lower court to obtain all relevant tax returns to ensure a complete financial picture. View "Stenson v. Stenson" on Justia Law

The case concerns a family in Evanston, Wyoming, where the State intervened after a five-day-old infant, SP, was hospitalized with a cerebral hemorrhage. Law enforcement took SP and three other minor children into protective custody, suspecting abuse or neglect by their parents, particularly focusing on the father, who is hearing-impaired and sometimes requires an ASL interpreter. The State filed a petition alleging abuse, and both parents initially denied the allegations. The children were placed in the custody of the Department of Family Services, and a permanency plan for family reunification with the mother was adopted.The District Court of Uinta County held several hearings, ensuring the father had access to an interpreter and legal counsel. During the proceedings, concerns about the father’s competency arose, but no formal motion for a competency evaluation was made. The father ultimately stipulated to the adjudication of neglect after being advised of his rights and confirming his understanding and voluntariness. Later, the father’s counsel sought to withdraw, citing communication difficulties, but the court denied the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances. When the father was incarcerated out of state, the court attempted to facilitate his participation in the disposition hearing, but he could only appear by phone, which was ineffective due to his hearing impairment. The court proceeded, denied the father’s motion to dismiss, and ordered the children to remain in state custody.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The Court held that deficiencies in the neglect petition did not deprive the juvenile court of subject matter jurisdiction, that a parent in neglect proceedings does not have a due process right to a competency evaluation, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel’s withdrawal. The Court also found no due process violation in proceeding with the disposition hearing without the father’s physical presence, given the circumstances and his representation by counsel. View "In the Interest of SP v. The State of Wyoming" on Justia Law

After a divorce in 2021, the parties were subject to separate court orders regarding custody and visitation of their minor child, DM. The mother was granted primary custody, with a planned 15-month transition to shared custody, which required reunification therapy for the father and DM. However, shared custody was never achieved, and DM remained in the mother’s primary care. In 2023, the mother petitioned to modify custody, visitation, and child support, arguing that the father had abandoned efforts to communicate with DM and that shared custody was not feasible due to his residence in Arizona. She also sought to adjust child support to reflect her continued primary custody.The District Court of Teton County held a bench trial to consider the mother’s petition. The court found that the circumstances had not materially changed since the original custody order, even though the order was not being followed. The court determined that DM’s welfare was unchanged, noting that DM continued to excel academically and socially, and that the estrangement between father and son persisted as it had at the time of the divorce. The court also found that the mother had not presented evidence of new efforts to foster the father-son relationship or that her relocation had impacted DM’s welfare. Consequently, the court denied the petition for modification of custody and child support.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no material change of circumstances affecting the child’s welfare. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the failure to comply with the custody order did not, in this instance, constitute a material change warranting modification. View "Cornell v. Mecartney" on Justia Law

LaToya Adams (Mother) and Dominick Gallegos (Father) are divorced, with Father having primary physical custody of their minor children as per a district court order. Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause, seeking to hold Father in contempt of the custody order, alleging that Father was not allowing her visitation with the children. The district court denied her motion, leading to this appeal.The District Court of Laramie County had previously modified the custody arrangement in August 2023, granting Father physical custody and allowing Mother visitation as deemed safe and appropriate by Father. The order also required the children to remain in counseling and for the parties to follow the recommendations of the counselors regarding visitation. During the hearing, testimony revealed that Father had restricted Mother's contact with the children due to safety concerns, particularly for one child, Y.G., who had significant mental health issues exacerbated by contact with Mother. The district court found that Father acted in good faith based on the therapist's recommendation and did not violate the custody order, thus denying Mother's motion for contempt.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and noted several deficiencies in Mother's appeal, including the lack of a designated record and failure to comply with procedural rules. The court found that Mother's brief did not present cogent arguments or pertinent authority to support her claims. Consequently, the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of Mother's motion for an order to show cause. View "Adams v. Gallegos" on Justia Law

Spencer Sharpe (Father) appealed a district court order denying his motion to hold Amy Evans (Mother) in contempt for allegedly withholding his parenting time and excluding him from their children's medical decisions. The parties divorced in 2018, agreeing to share custody, with Mother having final decision-making authority and discretion to withhold Father's parenting time if his mental health was not properly managed. In 2021, both parties sought to modify custody, and the district court found Mother had unreasonably denied Father visitation. The court modified the custody order and held Mother in contempt for past violations.Mother appealed the modification, and the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld the modification but reversed the contempt finding, citing ambiguity in the decree. While the appeal was pending, an incident occurred where Mother took one child from Father's home after an argument, leading to further legal disputes. The district court found Mother in contempt for not allowing supervised visits but did not hold her in contempt for other denials of parenting time due to lack of evidence of Father's compliance with required psychological evaluations.Father filed another motion for contempt, claiming Mother continued to deny his parenting time and interfered with medical decisions. The district court found no willful contempt by Mother and ordered Father to undergo a new psychological evaluation. Father appealed, arguing constitutional violations and ADA issues, but these arguments were not raised in the lower court or pertained to orders not currently under appeal.The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order, finding no error in denying the contempt motion. The court also granted Mother's request for attorney's fees and costs, citing the lack of reasonable cause for the appeal and the absence of cogent argument and relevant legal authority in Father's brief. View "Sharpe v. Evans" on Justia Law

Sandra Malone (Grandmother) filed a lawsuit against Salvador Galvan (Father) seeking visitation rights with ALG, the child of her deceased daughter. Father and Mother had a child, ALG, in July 2022. They regularly attended family dinners with Mother’s family, including Grandmother. After Mother’s death in an ATV accident caused by Father, Grandmother accused Father of killing Mother and supported his criminal prosecution. Father, concerned about Grandmother’s negative impact on ALG, stopped attending family dinners and discontinued visits between ALG and Grandmother, although he maintained relationships with other family members.The District Court of Albany County held a trial and granted Grandmother visitation rights. The court found that Grandmother had a significant preexisting relationship with ALG and concluded that Father’s decision to discontinue visits with Grandmother was harmful to ALG. The court awarded Grandmother visitation despite acknowledging concerns about her animosity towards Father and the potential negative impact on ALG.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in its findings. It emphasized that Grandmother needed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s decision to restrict visitation was harmful to ALG. The court found that Grandmother did not present any evidence of harm, while Father’s expert testified that visitation with Grandmother could harm ALG due to the hostile relationship between Father and Grandmother. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court violated Father’s constitutional rights as a parent by granting Grandmother visitation without sufficient evidence of harm to ALG.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the lower court clearly erred in finding that Grandmother established harm by clear and convincing evidence. View "Galvan v. Malone" on Justia Law

David Martorano (Father) and Melissa Mazzei (Mother) divorced in 2020 and share two children, BM and EM. The initial divorce decree provided for joint legal and physical custody and required Father to pay $1,800 per month in child support. In 2022, Mother sought to modify child custody and support. Both parties submitted confidential financial affidavits (CFAs) in late 2022, with Father reporting a net monthly income of $46,150 and Mother reporting $6,354. In October 2023, they updated their CFAs, with Father reporting a significant reduction in income to -$5,455 per month, citing decreased income from his employment and losses from his LLC, WY Knot Charters.The District Court of Natrona County calculated child support based on the figures from the 2022 CFAs, ordering Father to pay $7,830.94 per month and $90,464 in arrears. Father filed a motion for relief from judgment under W.R.C.P. 60, requesting the court to use his 2023 CFA and to recalculate arrears from October 2022 instead of August 2022. The district court granted the motion in part, recalculating arrears from October 2022 but maintaining the child support amount based on the 2022 CFA.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found no clerical mistake or oversight in the district court's reliance on the 2022 CFA and determined that changing the income figures would result in a substantive modification of the judgment, which is not permissible under W.R.C.P. 60(a). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b), as the accuracy of the 2023 CFA was disputed, and the proper avenue for challenging the district court's discretion was a direct appeal, not a W.R.C.P. 60 motion. View "Martorano v. Mazzei" on Justia Law

In 2016, a divorce decree awarded Eric Van Genderen Sr. (Father) custody of his child, EVG, with visitation rights for Ekaterina Nicholaevna Pokrovskaya (Mother). In 2022, Mother sought to modify her visitation rights, alleging Father was alienating EVG from her and not adhering to the visitation terms. The district court found a material change in circumstances and modified the visitation schedule to include a graduated plan starting with supervised visits.The District Court of Teton County granted Mother’s request for modification, establishing a graduated visitation schedule due to Father’s refusal to allow meaningful contact between Mother and EVG. The court found it in EVG’s best interests to amend the visitation schedule, starting with supervised visits and potentially leading to unsupervised visits. Father was ordered to pay for Mother’s travel expenses during the transition period.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the matter and that Mother’s appeal was timely. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s detailed and clear visitation schedule, which considered the best interests of EVG, including the quality of the parent-child relationship, the ability of each parent to provide care, and the geographic distance between the parents. The court also upheld the allocation of travel costs to Mother after the transition period, noting that the district court’s decision was reasonable and within its discretion. The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s findings were supported by the evidence and affirmed the modified visitation order. View "Pokrovskaya v. Van Genderen" on Justia Law

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