Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court holding that BJ lacked standing bring his petition to establish paternity and dismissing the petition, holding that a man claiming to be the biological father of a child has standing to bring a paternity action when the child has a legally presumed father.Mother gave birth to Child while married to CM, Child's presumed father. Another man, BJ, claimed to be Child's father and brought this action seeking to establish paternity. The district court concluded that BJ lacked standing under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-802 and dismissed his petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) BJ was a "man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated" under section 14-2-802(a)(iii); and (2) therefore, BJ had standing to bring his petition to establish paternity even where CM was legally presumed to be Child's father. View "BJ v. KM" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's motion to set aside entry of default and vacate default hearing and modifying the parties' decree of divorce to award Father primary custody of the children, holding that the district court did not err.Father petitioned for an order modifying custody and support following Mother's relocation with the parties' minor children. Mother failed to respond, and the clerk of court entered default. Three days later, Mother moved to set aside the entry of default and to vacate the hearing. The court denied the motion and found that Father had met his burden of proving a material change in circumstances that warranted a modification in custody and support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) denied Mother's motion to set aside entry of default and vacate default hearing; (2) precluded Mother from presenting affirmative evidence during the default hearing; and (3) modified custody. View "Rush v. Golkowski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying Father's child support obligation to Mother, holding that the court did not err by modifying Father's child support obligation without requiring Mother to prove a material change in circumstances in addition to a twenty percent change in the support amount.Father commenced this action in 2019 seeking modification of child custody, visitation, and support. The parties reached an agreement on all matters in Father's petition except child support, which proceeded to trial. Applying the child support guidelines, the district court found Father's presumptive support obligation would change by more than twenty percent from the amount previously ordered in 2016, establishing a change in circumstances to justify a modification under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-311(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the heightened requirement for modification of a child support order was inapplicable and that Mother's showing of a twenty percent change in support justified the district's modification of Father's child support obligation. View "Brown v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the juvenile court relieving the State of Wyoming's Department of Family Services (DFS) from its statutory responsibility to make reasonable efforts to reunify Father with Child, holding that the juvenile court violated Father's due process rights by failing to give him reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard early in the child protection action.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there were several due process violations in this case stemming from Father's lack of involvement in the juvenile court action, which colored the court's determination that it was appropriate to release DFS from its obligation to reunite the family, and under the circumstances, Father was materially prejudiced by the due process violations; and (2) the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ruled that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that aggravating circumstances existed that would make reunification between Father and Child unlikely. View "RA v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioners' verified petition for adoption requesting that the court enter an order of adoption recognizing MB's medically established age and directing the issuance of a Wyoming birth certificate with an accurate date of birth, holding that the district court erred.Petitioners adopted a minor, MB, from the Henan Province, Zhengzhou, People's Republic of China. The United States Department of State issued a Hague Adoption Certificate certifying the adoption. Later, MB's pediatrician determined that MB's documented age was incorrect and that MB was actually two years younger than the age listed on the official paperwork. Petitioners then filed the petition at issue. The district court dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that approval of the adoption was moot because the Hague Convention adoption must be recognized as valid and final. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) had subject matter jurisdiction to approve The Hague Convention adoption; and (2) was statutorily authorized to issue a decree of adoption allowing MB to obtain a Wyoming birth certificate with an accurate date of birth. View "In re Adoption of MAJB" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying the child support Father paid to Mother for the benefit of the parties' three minor children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing before calculating child support; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it calculated Father's income, when it did not allow a downward deviation from Father's presumptive child support, and when it did not use a shared responsibility calculation; and (3) Mother was not entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. View "Marquis v. Marquis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Mother's Wyo. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment requiring that the parties' child name not be changed after the court previously granted Father's motion to change the child's name, holding that the district court abused its discretion.Siobham Jerding (Mother) was married to someone else when she entered into a relationship with Terrance Brown (Father). Mother later gave birth to MFJ. The birth certificate listed Mother's husband as the child's father. Father filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, and visitation and to change MFJ's surname to Brown. The district court granted Father's motion to change MFJ's name to Brown. Thereafter, Mother filed her Rule 59 motion, arguing that the district court did not make a finding of good cause. The district court granted Motion's motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that none of the grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion were present in this case. View "Brown v. Jerding" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Appellant's parental rights, holding that the district court violated Appellant's due process rights when it determined the best interests of the child without first conducting an evidentiary hearing.The district court found that the Department of Family Services established statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. On appeal, Appellant argued that he was not given an opportunity to be heard on the question of whether termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court held (1) neither the termination statutes nor Wyoming case law require a separate hearing to determine the best interests of the child; but (2) Appellant's due process rights were violated when he was deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the question of best interests. View "Niland v. State, ex rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the judgment of the district court finding Bradley Jenkins in contempt for failing to follow the terms of its stipulated divorce decree and remanded for the district court to clarify its order as it pertained to refinancing the marital home, holding that it was unclear whether the court intended to impose the refinancing obligation on Bradley.The divorce decree awarded the marital home to Jonnie Jenkins and required her to refinance it and pay Bradley his share of the equity. Jonnie was unable to obtain refinancing because of numerous liens attached to the home. Jonnie asked the district court to hold Bradley in contempt for failing to comply with the divorce decree. The district court held both parties in contempt and ordered Bradley to release all judgment liens on the title to the marital home and assume the second mortgage. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) the district court did not err by requiring Bradley to make reasonable and consistent efforts to release the liens on the marital home; and (2) it was unclear which party was obligated to obtain refinancing for the marital home. View "Jenkins v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying TE's petition to establish paternity of AE on the grounds that TE had not timely filed his petition and remanded for an order adjudicating TE as AE's father, holding that while the district court has discretion to determine the timeliness of a paternity petition before ordering testing, the statutes do not afford the district court discretion on the timeliness of a petition after ordering genetic testing.The Department of Family Services later took protective custody of AE and sought to terminate the rights of AE's parents. Mother and the presumed father voluntarily relinquished their parental rights to AE. TE, who was listed on the termination petition as the alleged father, filed a petition to establish paternity. Genetic testing was conducted and disclosed a 99.99 percent probability of paternity. After a trial, the district court found that TE's petition was not timely filed and denied the petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Department lacked standing to contest TE's petition to establish paternity; and (2) the district court lacked the discretion to adjudicate parentage after it was presented with court-ordered genetic testing results that complied with the statutes and indicated that TE was AE's biological father. View "TE v. State, Department of Family Services" on Justia Law