Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Mother’s youngest two children were placed in the legal custody of Wyoming’s Department of Family Services (Department), Mother was convicted of assault and battery and incarcerated. The Department subsequently filed a petition for termination of parental rights against Mother. Mother failed to timely answer, plead, or otherwise defend, and the clerk of court entered default against Mother. Mother filed a motion to set aside the default. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Mother failed to establish good cause to set aside the default. After a default hearing on termination of Mother’s parental rights, the district court found that clear and convincing evidence established that Mother’s parental rights to the children should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court had appellate jurisdiction to consider the substantive issues raised by Mother; (2) the district court did not err as a matter of law in denying Mother’s motion to set aside the entry of default; and (3) the Department presented sufficient evidence to support termination of Mother’s parental rights to the two children. View "CLB v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs." on Justia Law

After just more than three years of marriage, Wife sued Husband for divorce. Wife subsequently filed a motion to amend her complaint to add a cause of action for promissory estoppel. The district court denied the motion, concluding that justice did not require leave to amend the complaint. The district court then distributed the couple’s property and property-related obligations to the party who brought it into the marriage. If an asset was purchased during the marriage, the court awarded it to the party whose assets were used to purchase it. The court awarded Wife an additional $45,000 equalization payment. Wife appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wife’s motion for leave to amend; and (2) the district court’s distribution of the couple’s property was not an abuse of discretion. View "Dane v. Dane" on Justia Law

When Child was approximately one year old, Mother left Child in the care of Aunt, Mother’s sister. Aunt was appointed temporary guardian of Child. Aunt then filed a petition for permanent guardianship. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, ruling that Aunt failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother and Father were unfit as parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court applied the correct burden of proof in evaluating whether Aunt had proven that Mother and Father were unfit; and (2) the district court’s finding that Aunt did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mother and Father was no clearly erroneous, inconsistent with the evidence, or contrary to the great weight of the evidence. View "Eshleman v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

After Father and Mother separated, the parties’ child lived with Mother. Father later filed a petition to establish paternity and visitation, and, eventually, regular visitation between Father and the child was established. Father subsequently amended his petition to seek custody of the child. After a trial, the district court granted custody of the child to Father, subject to Mother’s visitation rights. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to allow the child’s therapist to give opinion testimony at the custody hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the therapist’s opinion testimony because Mother did not comply with her discovery obligations. View "JN v. RFSG" on Justia Law

Due to the county attorney's allegations that Mother neglected Child, the juvenile court temporarily placed Child with Grandmother. Father agreed that Child should remain in the custody of the Department of Family Services (DFS) for placement with Grandmother under a consent decree, which provided that if Mother complied with certain requirements, the neglect action would be dismissed. While the consent decree was pending, Father asserted that he should have custody of Child. The juvenile court entered a permanency order continuing Child in DFS custody. Father appealed. The county attorney subsequently moved to dismiss the case and terminate DFS custody of Child on the grounds that Mother had completed her case plan and complied with the consent decree. The juvenile court dismissed the case. Father also appealed this order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not err when it dismissed the case without a hearing and without making findings; and (2) the other issues raised by Father are moot, and no exception to the mootness doctrine applies. View "DB v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother had one child together when Mother filed for divorce. The district court ordered the parties to share physical custody of the child, alternating between Father’s residence and Mother’s residence until the child reached school age, at which time primary physical custody was awarded to Mother. With regard to the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Father most of the parties’ property and required Father to compensate Mother in the form of an equalizing payment. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion when it ordered shared custody, as the court failed to consider the effect that the shared custody arrangement would have on the child; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its division of the marital assets and liabilities. Remanded with instructions to award primary physical custody of the child to Mother, with reasonable visitation to Father. View "Williams v. Williams" on Justia Law

Mother and Father separated in 2005, when their child was ten months old, and largely shared parenting of the child. In 2012, Father filed a petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support. The district court first issued a temporary custody order addressing temporary custody, visitation, and child support during the pendency of the custody action. After a trial, the district court issued a final custody order awarding primary custody to Father and granting Mother liberal visitation rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in treating its final custody order as an initial custody determination rather than as a modification of an existing custody order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration and weighting of the status quo and the child’s custody preference in making its custody determination. View "Demers v. Nicks" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife divorced in 2014. Wife appealed from the judgment of divorce, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in not awarding her alimony, erred in its property division, and erred in finding that Wife was able to work. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding alimony despite Wife’s five-year time limit in her request; (2) the district court equitably divided the marital property; and (3) the district court did not err in finding that Wife could conceivably work. View "Kamm v. Kamm" on Justia Law

In 2012, Robert Bratton filed a petition to be appointed the guardian of William Bratton, Robert’s brother. Jeanne Blenkinsop, William’s sister, responded with a counter petition seeking to be appointed guardian and conservator. The district court subsequently granted permanent guardianship and conservatorship to Blenkinsop and dismissed Robert’s petition. Thereafter, Blenkinsop filed a Guardian’s Second Report with the district court. The district court ratified and approved the report, thus rejecting Robert’s objections to the report. Blenkinsop later filed a “Conservator’s First Annual Accounting.” The district court confirmed and approved the accounting. Robert appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions accepting the Guardian’s Second Report and the Conservator’s First Annual Accounting, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgments; and (2) because there was no reasonable cause for these appeals, Blenkinsop was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. View "Bratton v. Blenkinsop" on Justia Law

Mother and Father, who never married, were the parents of two minor children. After the parties separated, the parties filed a stipulated order establishing custody and visitation, which was entered by the district court. The district court later entered a stipulated order for modification of child support, which required Father to pay child support in an amount based on the parties’ agreement that they were exercising shared custody. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify support, claiming a material change in circumstances. Mother requested that the district court order Father to pay child support in accordance with the presumptive child support guidelines that apply when one parent, i.e., Mother, has primary physical custody. The district court found that the existing custody arrangement was, in fact, not shared as the previous stipulated orders indicated and that Mother actually had primary custody based on the number of nights that the parties had the children overnight per year. The court then found a downward deviation was warranted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-307(b) and reduced Father’s child support obligation from the presumptive amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deviating downward from the primary custody presumptive support amount. View "Dellit v. Tracy" on Justia Law