Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The juvenile court adjudicated Father a neglectful parent to his two children. On appeal, Father argued that he could not be neglectful under the applicable statutes because he did not have physical custody or control of the children at the time that the allegedly neglectful behavior occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable statutes do not require that a child’s parent or noncustodial parent have actual physical custody or control of the children in order to be found to have neglected the children; and (2) accordingly, the juvenile court correctly interpreted the statute. View "TW v. State" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition alleging that Mother had neglected her seventeen-year-old son, NP. On January 6, 2016, Mother denied the allegations. Mother’s jury demand was due January 21, 2016. On February 5, 2016, Mother filed a motion for jury trial, contending that she had called the court’s office and the clerk of the district court within the prescribed time period to request a jury trial. The juvenile court rejected Mother’s request. After an adjudication hearing, the court adjudicated NP as neglected by Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not err in denying Mother’s motion for jury trial; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding of neglect. View "CP v. State" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced pursuant to a stipulated divorce decree that granted Mother custody of the children, subject to Father’s right to liberal visitation. When Mother advised Father that she intended to move to another city with the children, Father filed a petition to modify the custody, visitation, and support provisions of the divorce decree. After a trial, the district court granted custody of the children to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when, six months prior to trial, it granted Father temporary physical custody of the children upon offers of proof and argument, rather than after holding a full evidentiary hearing; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the children’s counselor to testify as an expert witness at trial; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the children to Father after a full evidentiary hearing; and (4) the court did not violate Mother’s constitutional rights to interstate travel and to associate with her children when it modified custody in favor of Father. View "Tracy v. Tracy" on Justia Law

Appellee sought an order from the district court finding Appellant in contempt for violating their divorce decree by failing to pay his portion of their two children’s college tuition, expenses, and room and board. The district court entered judgment in favor of Appellee and the children. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in entering a judgment in favor of the non-party adult children; and (2) the Court was unable to review Appellee’s claim that there was no evidence to support the district court’s judgment in favor of Appellant because Appellee did not provide an adequate record on appeal. View "Waterbury v. Waterbury" on Justia Law

In 2004, KGS was born to Father and Mother. In 2013, a neglect petition was filed against Mother and, after a hearing, KGS was placed in the legal custody of the Department of Family Services. The Department later filed a petition seeking termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights. After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department presented sufficient evidence to support termination of Father’s parental rights; and (2) Father failed to show that he was denied due process in this case. View "In re Termination of Parental Rights to KGS" on Justia Law

In 2014, Tana Brown filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Darold Brown. Six days later, the district court signed a proposed stipulated decree of divorce. Ten months later, Tana moved to vacate or modify the divorce decree. After trial was scheduled, a scheduling conference was held and resulted in the entry of a scheduling order. Tana then filed a motion for sanctions asserting that Darold had not complied with a deadline in the scheduling order. The district court granted the motion for sanctions, imposing the requested sanction of prohibiting Darold from presenting witness testimony or exhibits at trial. After a trial, the district court granted physical custody of the parties’ children to Tana and divided remaining property and debt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions. View "Brown v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2015, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. The district court granted the petition, finding that Mother had proven grounds to terminate Father’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence and that it was in the children’s best interest to do so. In so ruling, the court determined that Father had left his children in Mother’s care without provision for support and without communication for at least one year and that Father’s letters and cards to his children were incidental communications which did not prevent termination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the communications Father directed to his children were not merely incidental, and therefore, the requirement that there be no communication from the absent parent for a period of at least one year was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. View "RA v. AW" on Justia Law

Mother filed for divorce from Father. After Father failed timely to file an answer to Mother’s complaint the clerk of court entered default. Father moved to set aside the entry of default. After a hearing, which Father did not attend, the district court entered a default divorce decree. The district court denied Father’s subsequently-filed motion to set aside entry of default and default divorce decree, finding that Father received notice of the hearing on default. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Father’s due process rights when it held the default hearing on default in Father’s absence or in issuing the default divorce decree; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the parties’ property and debts or in its child support calculations. View "Peak v. Peak" on Justia Law

In 2005, the district court appointed Brenda Clark as the guardian of MKH, who was born not long after the appointment. In 2006, the court extended the guardianship. In 2014, Father filed a petition seeking to vacate the 2005 order. Father then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter its 2005 order appointing Clark as MKH’s guardian because MKH was not yet born. The district court entered an order granting Father’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and declared the 2005 and 2006 orders void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a court may not appoint a guardian for an unborn child; but (2) the 2005 order appointing a guardian did not rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect. View "Clark v. Huffer" on Justia Law

SO was in the legal custody of the Wyoming Department of Family Services and had been in the physical care of Foster Parents since she was three days old. The grandmother and step-grandfather of SO (together, Grandparents) filed a motion seeking to transfer placement of SO from Foster Parents to Grandparents. The juvenile court denied the motion and ordered that SO should continue to be placed with Foster Parents, determining that it was in the best interests of SO to remain in the custody of Foster Parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grandparents’ motion to place SO with them. View "In re SO" on Justia Law