Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Family Law
ANOL v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs.
The district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Appellant, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support three statutory grounds for termination of Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant appealed. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The Supreme Court then entered an order granting Appellant a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. The Court subsequently granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and the district court’s order terminating the parental rights of Appellant. View "ANOL v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Cook v. Moore
Mother and Father had one child, TM, during their marriage. When the parties divorced, the custody order awarded Mother primary physical custody of TM. When Father learned that Mother was planning to marry and move with TM to live with her new husband in Texas, Father filed an amended petition to modify requesting primary physical custody of TM. After a trial, the district court found that Mother’s relocation constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was in TM’s best interest for Father to be awarded primary physical custody. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it found that Mother’s relocation constituted a material change of circumstances warranting the reopening of the original custody order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude that the considerable increase in the geographical distance between the parties created a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of TM. View "Cook v. Moore" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Sinclair v. Sinclair
After twenty years of marriage, Wife filed for divorce from Husband. The primary issue at trial concerned the division of the marital property. After the district court entered a divorce decree, Wife appealed, arguing that the court erred when it declined to require Husband to pay interest on the amount it ordered him to pay to equalize the division of marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion when it suspended payment of interest as long as Husband makes annual payments of at least $15,000 toward the property allocation. View "Sinclair v. Sinclair" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Stephen v. Stephen
Wife filed for divorce from Husband. The parties reached a settlement agreement as to child custody and visitation but were unable to agree concerning child support and the division of property. After a trial, the district court entered a decree dividing the marital property. Husband appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in valuing his interest in the family business and requiring him to make a lump sum payment to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Husband to pay the amount owed to Wife in a lump sum and in accepting the capitalization of earnings method for valuing the business. View "Stephen v. Stephen" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Breen v. Black
When Theresia Breen and Jamie Black divorced, Black was required to provide medical insurance for the parties’ four girls. The decree required the parties to split any medical costs remaining after deductibles were paid by Black and the insurer satisfied its obligations under the policy equally. In 2012, Breen filed a motion seeking Black’s share of medical expenses she had paid incurred for the children. Black paid the requested amount. In 2014, Black filed a motion seeking have Breen held in contempt for failing to pay her required half of the children’s medical expenses that were not paid under his health insurance policy. The district court held Breen in contempt and entered judgment against Breen for the $6,075 it determined she owed Black. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the civil contempt order except for that portion issuing a judgment to Black for $6,075; and (2) reversed the award of $6,075 because it included amounts Black was barred from seeking due to his failure to prove them after raising them in the 2012 proceedings. Remanded with instructions for the district court to recalculate the amount owed by Breen and to amend its order. View "Breen v. Black" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
JCLK v. ZHB
BHB was born in 2010 to Mother and Father, who were not married. Father filed a petition seeking to establish paternity, custody, visitation, and child support for BHB. After a trial held in 2014, the district court awarded primary custody of four-year-old BHB to Father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary custody of BHB to Father after considering all of the evidence and concluding that it was in the best interests of BHB that Father be the primary custodial parent. View "JCLK v. ZHB" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
In re CDR
The child in this case was twelve years old and in sixth grade when an educational neglect case was filed alleging that Father and Mother had “failed or refused to provide adequate education necessary for the child’s well being.” A consent decree was entered pursuant to which the child was to remain in his parents’ custody and the child and parents were to fulfill numerous behavioral and counseling conditions. One of those conditions was that Father and Mother obtain an alcohol/substance abuse evaluation and follow the regimen of treatment recommended. The State later moved to revoke the consent decree due to Mother’s consumption of alcohol. The juvenile court revoked the consent decree and reinstated the neglect proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the case, holding that the juvenile court (1) did not lose jurisdiction over the neglect case after finding that the child’s education problems had been resolved; but (2) erred in concluding that Mother violated the terms of the consent decree by drinking alcohol. View "In re CDR" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
CL v. ML
The parties in this case had a minor child but never married. After the parties separated, they eventually entered into a settlement agreement agreeing that they would have joint legal custody of the child and that Father would have visitation. The district court approved that agreement. Father filed a request for relief to establish visitation with his child, asserting that no visitation with the child had been scheduled for the upcoming summer in contravention of the parties’ agreement. After a hearing, the district court issued an order establishing a graduated visitation schedule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in deciding to exclude testimony relating to particular incidents of domestic abuse that occurred prior to entry of the settlement agreement and properly considered testimony relating to alleged incidents of domestic abuse and child abuse in determining the best interests of the child; and (2) the issue of whether the district court violated Mother’s constitutional right to travel was moot. View "CL v. ML" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
Dahlke v. Dahlke
After Mother and Father divorced in 2010, the parties shared custody of their minor children. Father later petitioned for custody modification, alleging that there had been a “material change in circumstances” since the entry of the original custody order, chief among them being Mother’s arrest for conspiracy to commit larceny by bailee. Mother counterclaimed, also alleging that a material change in circumstances had occurred in part because of Father’s changed living situation. Both parties sought primary custody. The district court ruled that there had been a material change in circumstances warranting reopening the custody determination and awarded primary custody of the children to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change in circumstances existed that warranted the reopening of the existing custody order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in the best interests of the children for Mother to have primary custody. View "Dahlke v. Dahlke" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Family Law
In re GC
In this child neglect proceeding, the juvenile court found that it was in the child’s best interest to cease efforts to reunify him with Mother and to change the permanency plan to termination of parental rights and eventually adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s order, holding (1) while due process may require an evidentiary hearing when a permanency plan is changed from family reunification to termination of parental rights, Mother failed to establish plain error in the juvenile court’s failure to apply the Wyoming Rules of Evidence during the permanency hearing; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that to find that it was in the child’s best interests to change the permanency plan to adoption. View "In re GC" on Justia Law