Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court increasing Father's child support obligation, denying Father's petition to modify custody, and refusing to modify visitation, holding that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that there was a material change of circumstances to reopen the child support order in this case and by refusing to modify visitation.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) abused its discretion by reopening the stipulated child support order without requiring Mother to show a change in circumstances regarding child support other than a twenty percent change in the presumptive support amount; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Father's request for primary custody of the children but did abuse its discretion by refusing to modify visitation; and (3) did not err by failing to explain its reasons for not following the guardian ad litem's recommendation regarding custody. View "Kimzey v. Kimzey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Father's parental rights to two of his children, holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence relating to the children's mother and half siblings and that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Father's parental rights could be terminated under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309.A jury concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Father's parental rights on the grounds that the children had been abused or neglected by Father and the Department of Family Services' reasonable efforts had been unsuccessful in rehabilitating the family and that the children had been in the State's custody for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months and that Father was unfit to have custody and control of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) evidence concerning Father's relationship with the children's mother and half siblings was relevant to the question of whether Father was currently fit to parent the children and thus was admissible; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find clear and convincing evidence that Father was unfit at the time of the termination hearings. View "Clark v. State, Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entering a divorce decree in which it awarded a 160-acre parcel of land to Wife and required Husband to satisfy any unpaid property taxes, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in its property division and assignment of debt or in considering attorney's fees as a factor in its property division.During much of their marriage, Wife and Husband lived on a 160-acre parcel of land owned by Husband's parents. After Husband's parents deeded the parcel to Husband, Wife filed for divorce. The district court awarded the property to Wife and required Husband to satisfy any unpaid property taxes. The Court noted that Wife's requests for an award of attorney's fees during the proceedings were considered in arriving at its division of property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in the disposition of property or in its consideration of attorney's fees. View "Malli v. Malli" on Justia Law

In this dispute arising from Father's claim that Mother failed to reimburse him for the parties' child's medical costs the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying Mother's motion to set aside the court's judgment requiring her to pay not only the medical costs but also the attorney fees and costs Father incurred in collecting the amounts owed and post judgment interest, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Father was given primary custody of the parties' child. The parties were directed to split evenly the child's medical costs. Father later filed a motion for order to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for failing to pay one-half of several medical bills Father had presented for payment. The district court entered an award for Father comprising the amount consisting of the balance owing and an award of pre and post judgment interest, as well as attorney fees and costs. Mother moved for relief from the judgment pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6). The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief under rule 60(b)(5) and that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the fees and costs. View "Olson v. Schriner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's divorce decree, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining child support and dividing marital property but did err by issuing a visitation order to vague to support understanding and compliance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err by finding Father was not voluntarily underemployed; (2) the district court did exceed the bounds of reason in dividing the marital property; and (3) the district court's visitation plan was not sufficiently definite to promote understanding, compliance and enforcement. The Court remanded the case for the district court to order visitation in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance, in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-202(a)(i). View "Edwards v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing without prejudice Grandmother's petition seeking temporary guardianship of Grandchild for failure to prosecute, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Grandmother filed her petition for temporary guardianship on May 9, 2017. On June 26, 2017, the district court issued an order to show cause, noting that no action had been taken on the petition in more than two years and ordering Grandmother to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed. The court subsequently entered an order dismissing the petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition. View "In re Interest of Bass" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court establishing paternity, custody, visitation and child support, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in any aspects of its child support apportionment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to make the support obligation retroactive; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to impute Father's income at the amount he earned in a previous, higher-paying position; and (3) Mother's arguments regarding allocation of responsibility for the child's medical insurance and medical costs were not ripe for review. View "Shipley v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying visitation and child support after Mother moved to Idaho, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After Mother moved to Idaho from Wyoming Father petitioned to modify custody, visitation and support, requesting physical and residential custody of the parties' daughter. Mother counterclaimed to maintain primary physical custody of the child. The district court then issued a final order concluding that Mother's move constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was in the child's best interest for Father to have primary physical and residential custody of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) determined that it was in the child's best interest for Father to have primary physical and residential custody of the child after she enters kindergarten; and (2) established the visitation plan. View "Walsh v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying a petition filed by Father and Stepmother for adoption of Father and Mother's two minor children pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-22-110(a)(ix), holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mother's failure to pay seventy percent or more of court-ordered child support for a two-year period was not willful.Father and Stepmother petitioned the district court to allow Stepmother to adopt Father and Mother's two minor children based on Mother's willful failure to pay at least seventy percent of court-ordered support for a two-year period. The district court denied the petition, determining that Mother's failure to pay was not willful. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that Mother's failure to meet her child support obligation was not willful. View "CML v. ADBL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's decree of divorce and order awarding custody and dividing property and debts between Father and Mother, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering supervised visitation and dividing the marital property but abused its discretion in calculating Father's child support amount.Father argued that the district court abused its discretion in restricting Father's visitation with his four children to two hours of supervised visitation every other week until Father addressed the court's concerns regarding his anger. Father further argued that the court abused its discretion when it divided the marital property and when it found him voluntarily underemployed for not working overtime. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it imposed supervised visitation, finding Father had abused the children, and conditioning visitation on counseling for both Father and the children; (2) did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital property; but (3) abused its discretion when it circumvented the express statutory limitation set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-303(a)(ii) prohibiting courts from including in child support calculations any earnings derived from overtime work. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law