Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A mother and father, who were in a long-term relationship but not married, had four children together, three of whom are at the center of this case. Repeated incidents in which one child was found wandering unsupervised led the Wyoming Department of Family Services to intervene, citing concerns over parental neglect and substance abuse. After several failed safety plans and continued issues, all three children were taken into protective custody in May 2023. The Department subsequently filed a neglect petition, and the children remained in foster care. Over the following months, the parents struggled with compliance on case plans, including substance abuse treatment and visitation. The Department ultimately sought termination of both parents’ rights, and the children were thriving in foster placements by the time of trial.The District Court of Carbon County conducted a bench trial. The court entered default against the father for failure to respond timely and later denied his motion to set aside the default. After trial, the court found clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate both parents’ rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v), and determined that termination was in the children’s best interests. Both parents appealed, and their appeals were consolidated.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. The court held that any deficiencies in the Department's adherence to its policies did not impermissibly affect the father’s rights, distinguishing this case from MB v. Laramie County Department of Family Services. The court affirmed termination of the father’s rights based on unchallenged sufficiency of the evidence under § 14-2-309(a)(v). As to the mother, the court found that clear and convincing evidence supported her unfitness and rejected her argument that reasonable reunification efforts were required under § 14-2-309(a)(v). The district court’s termination of parental rights for both parents was affirmed. View "In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: CCC" on Justia Law

A married couple with ten minor children separated, and the mother filed for divorce. During the marriage, the father engaged in a pattern of severe and chronic domestic violence, which was witnessed and at times experienced by the children. The father pled guilty to several criminal charges, including felony child abuse and domestic violence-related offenses, resulting in incarceration at the time of the divorce proceedings. The mother sought and was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children. The divorce decree denied the father immediate visitation but established conditions for potential future contact. In dividing the marital property, the mother was awarded the marital home, while the father received the family business and was assigned nearly all marital debt, except for the home’s mortgage and related utilities.The District Court of Crook County held a bench trial and issued a divorce decree reflecting these terms. The father appealed, challenging, among other things, the division of property and debts, the restricted visitation, and aspects of the trial process. In his briefs, the father raised numerous issues but failed to provide developed legal arguments or cite authorities connecting the issues to the facts of his case. The mother responded that the appeal lacked cogent legal argument and requested attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case. Applying longstanding Wyoming law, the court found the father’s briefs did not comply with the requirement to present cogent arguments and pertinent authority. The court summarily affirmed the district court’s decree of divorce, declining to award attorney fees but granting costs to the mother. The main holding is that an appeal may be summarily affirmed when the appellant fails to present cogent argument or relevant authority, as required by the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Idler v. Idler" on Justia Law

A married couple with three children separated after the husband retired from military service and the wife filed for divorce. During their marriage, the husband acquired several properties and vehicles, some of which were later transferred to a nonprofit entity he controlled. The wife had a history of alcohol use, including a DUI conviction, but had been sober for nearly two years before the divorce proceedings. The couple also had a family dog, which the husband claimed as his service animal. The wife obtained an ex parte protective order, which was later extended for one year after a hearing in circuit court, and was awarded joint custody of the children on an alternating week basis.The District Court of Park County, Wyoming, presided over the divorce trial. The husband filed a late motion for psychological evaluations of both parties under Rule 35, citing allegations of substance abuse and parental alienation, but the district court denied the motion as untimely and lacking good cause. The district court awarded primary physical custody to the wife, with the husband receiving substantial parenting time. The court also ordered the husband to pay the wife equitable sums for her share of the marital assets, including real property, financial accounts, and the value of vehicles transferred to the nonprofit during the divorce. Regarding the family dog, the court ordered that its custody be shared according to the children’s schedule, with the dog to remain with the husband if the wife declined responsibility for transporting it.The Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s decisions, holding that the denial of the motion for psychological evaluations was within the court's discretion due to its untimeliness and lack of good cause. The Supreme Court also held that the custody determination, property division, and the arrangement for the family dog were not abuses of discretion and were supported by the record. The judgment was affirmed. View "Ribera v. Ribera" on Justia Law

A married couple entered into a postnuptial agreement in 2018, one year after their marriage. The agreement listed each party’s separate property, including certain retirement accounts, and provided a specific formula for dividing retirement assets in the event of divorce. In 2024, the wife filed for divorce in Wyoming. During the proceedings, both parties acknowledged the validity and enforceability of their postnuptial agreement. The agreement contained a choice of law clause specifying application of Oregon law to property distribution.The District Court of Sheridan County held a bench trial and entered a Decree of Divorce. The district court applied the postnuptial agreement’s formula to retirement accounts not listed in the agreement’s exhibits, dividing pre-marriage balances as separate property and contributions made after June 1, 2017, as joint property. However, for the retirement accounts specifically listed as separate property in the agreement’s exhibits, the court awarded the entirety of each account to the named account holder, regardless of any post-June 1, 2017, contributions or earnings.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the postnuptial agreement. The Supreme Court held that the agreement unambiguously provided for separate treatment of retirement accounts, specifying that only pre-June 1, 2017, balances were to be considered separate property, while all post-June 1, 2017, contributions, earnings, and interest—regardless of whether the account was listed in the exhibits—were to be treated as joint property subject to equitable division. The Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by failing to divide the post-June 1, 2017, portions of the retirement accounts listed in the exhibits. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for distribution of those assets in accordance with Wyoming law. View "Smerski v. Lemon" on Justia Law

A mother and her adult son, who is physically disabled, filed a petition seeking post-majority support from the son’s father. The parents divorced in 2020, and the divorce decree did not require child support. The son, who was born prematurely, suffered from significant physical health problems, including chronic lung injury and immunodeficiency, but the support petition was based only on his physical disabilities. After the son reached the age of majority and graduated high school, the district court appointed his mother as his adult guardian with his consent.The District Court of Laramie County held a bench trial to determine whether the son was eligible for post-majority support under Wyoming law, which allows support beyond the age of majority for children who are “mentally or physically disabled and thereby incapable of self support.” The court found that, although the son was physically disabled, he was capable of self-support. This conclusion was based on evidence that the son received Social Security Disability Income, was computer literate, intended to attend college, could perform independent living tasks, and had expressed in a vocational evaluation that he did not perceive barriers to employment. The son and his mother appealed the district court’s denial of their petition.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case under an abuse of discretion standard. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the son was capable of self-support. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that the findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellants had not shown any legal error or misapplication of the burden of proof. The court also declined to address an argument about shifting burdens of proof because it was not raised below and was unsupported by legal authority. View "Causey v. Causey" on Justia Law

Following the parents’ divorce in 2012, ongoing custody disputes ensued over their two daughters. A 2019 order granted primary custody to the mother, with visitation for the father. In late 2024, the father filed for custody modification after the older daughter, then fifteen, reported that her mother had expelled her from the home. The father retrieved the daughter, took her to Colorado, and notified local police. Attempts at visitation and school enrollment led to further police involvement and contentious exchanges, including a physical altercation between the mother and daughter and additional conflicts involving the mother’s adult son. Throughout these events, the father sought temporary and then permanent changes to the custody order.The District Court of Laramie County initially addressed temporary custody motions and later held a hearing on the father’s petition for modification. The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL), who recommended counseling and ultimately a change in custody. At trial, both daughters expressed a preference for living with their mother. The GAL, however, recommended primary custody be transferred to the father. After weighing testimony and the GAL’s report, the district court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred, citing the breakdown of the mother’s relationship with the older daughter and ongoing instability. The court modified the order, awarding primary custody of both daughters to the father, with visitation for the mother.Upon review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a material change in circumstances or in concluding that awarding primary custody to the father was in the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court also granted the father costs, as permitted by rule, but not attorney’s fees, since he appeared pro se. View "Duncan v. Duncan" on Justia Law

A married couple residing primarily in Jackson, Wyoming, with three children, went through divorce proceedings after a tumultuous relationship marked by substance abuse and domestic conflict. The husband, a founder and majority owner of a successful IT consulting business, and the wife, who gave up her career to raise their children, disputed issues of custody, visitation, child support, and property division. During the divorce, the wife sought and later dismissed a protective order, and the parties agreed to a temporary custody arrangement. The husband subsequently filed for divorce, and the wife secured a job in New York, intending to relocate with the children.The District Court of Teton County, following a bench trial, awarded joint legal custody with primary physical custody to the wife, allowing her to relocate. The court set detailed visitation terms for the husband and calculated child support by imputing a high income to him, based partly on prior business distributions. The court valued the marital estate, including the husband’s business, and awarded the wife 55% of the assets, justifying this as equitable due to her career sacrifices. The husband’s requests for a stay of proceedings and for enforcement of visitation were denied; the court also clarified that visitation periods could not be combined.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly valuing the husband’s business interest and by including unlikely future business distributions in imputing his income for child support. The court reversed both the property division and the child support calculation, remanding for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed the custody and visitation orders, finding them within the district court’s discretion and supported by the evidence. The order clarifying visitation while the appeal was pending was vacated due to lack of jurisdiction. The denial of a stay was affirmed. View "Callaway v. Callaway" on Justia Law

A husband and wife married in 1989 and separated in 2023. They had a long marriage, shared two adult daughters, and owned a marital home on twenty-six acres near Casper, Wyoming, as well as other real and personal property, including an undeveloped plot in Alaska. The marital estate included several vehicles, campers, tractors, snowmobiles, retirement and investment accounts, and pensions. The husband filed for divorce, seeking dissolution of the marriage and division of property. At trial, the main disputes involved the valuation of the marital home and the wife’s pension accounts. Both parties presented expert testimony on these values, with differing appraisals and methods.The District Court of Natrona County held a bench trial and divided the marital property, awarding the husband the marital home, the Alaska property, and most of the vehicles and equipment. The wife was awarded her pensions, a smaller share of personal property, and an $850,000 equalization payment from the husband, to be paid within ninety days. Neither party requested special findings of fact regarding the valuations. The husband appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by accepting higher valuations for the marital home and lower valuations for the wife’s pensions, resulting in an excessive equalization payment.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. It held that, because neither party requested special findings of fact, it must presume the district court made all factual findings necessary to support its judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that sufficient evidence supported the district court’s valuation choices, that the distribution reflected consideration of the statutory factors, and that the overall property division, including the equalization payment, was not so unfair as to shock the conscience of the court. The court affirmed the district court’s decree. View "Allen v. Allen" on Justia Law

A child born in 2014, RTT, was placed under the co-guardianship of his maternal grandfather, James Serfoss, III, and Mr. Serfoss’s domestic partner, Leslie M. Salmon, beginning in 2016. The two petitioners are not married. In 2025, RTT’s biological father, Tyler Thomas, sought to terminate the guardianship. In response, Serfoss and Salmon jointly counterclaimed, seeking to adopt RTT. The child’s biological mother consented to the adoption, but the biological father did not.Following the joint adoption counterclaim, Mr. Thomas moved to dismiss, arguing that Wyoming law does not permit two unmarried individuals to jointly petition for adoption. The District Court of Converse County certified the legal question to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, asking whether Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-22-104(b) allows for a joint adoption petition by two unmarried individuals.The Supreme Court of Wyoming, reviewing the certified question de novo, held that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-22-104(b) does not permit two unmarried individuals to file a joint petition to adopt a minor child. The statute expressly allows joint petitions only for married couples and does not authorize joint petitions by multiple unmarried individuals. The court emphasized that while each unmarried adult may separately petition for adoption, they cannot file jointly; the district court may, however, consolidate separate petitions for consideration. The court declined to read into the statute any broader authority or to interpret legislative silence as permitting joint petitions by unmarried individuals. The Supreme Court’s answer to the certified question was therefore “no.” View "In the Matter of the Guardianship Of: RTT" on Justia Law

A mother with a history of involvement with the Department of Family Services had her youngest child, BAR, removed from her care after police found her intoxicated, in possession of methamphetamine, and responsible for leaving children unattended in a running vehicle. She was subsequently arrested and convicted of child endangerment. The Department developed a reunification case plan focused on sobriety, mental health, stable housing, and parenting skills. Despite receiving significant support and services from the Department, the mother repeatedly failed to comply with her case plan. She did not maintain sobriety, attend counseling consistently, or secure stable housing, and her visitation with BAR was sporadic. Her progress was further hampered by recurring involvement in unstable and sometimes violent relationships and continued substance abuse.The District Court of Natrona County first placed BAR in the Department’s custody following an abuse and neglect petition. The juvenile court initially pursued a reunification plan but later shifted to a plan of adoption due to the mother’s lack of progress. After a five-day bench trial, the district court found clear and convincing evidence that BAR had been in foster care for at least fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months and that the mother was unfit to have custody and control of BAR, citing ongoing instability, untreated mental health issues, substance abuse, and lack of consistent visitation. The court terminated the mother's parental rights under Wyoming Statute § 14-2-309(a)(v).On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Wyoming reviewed whether sufficient evidence supported termination under the statute. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that clear and convincing evidence established the statutory grounds for termination based on the mother’s unfitness and the duration of BAR’s time in foster care. View "B.A.R. v. State Ex Rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law