Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to giving birth to a child conceived with Father, Mother stopped communicating with Father. After learning about his child’s birth on Facebook, Father filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, visitation and child support. After a trial, the district court awarded Mother primary custody subject to Father’s visitation. Father appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded primary custody of the child to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion or commit reversible error in deciding to award primary custody to Mother. View "FFJ v. ST" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father were divorced Mother was granted primary physical custody of the parties’ child. Mother later moved to Pennsylvania where she commenced proceedings seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights. Thereafter, Father asked the Wyoming court to enter orders to facilitate the exercise of his visitation rights. The district court in Sweetwater County declined to exercise jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, concluding that Pennsylvania was a more appropriate place for the parties to litigate all issues. Father did not appeal from the order declining jurisdiction but instead objected to the order. The court denied the objection. Father subsequently appealed from the order ruling on his objection. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) Father’s objection was in substance a motion to reconsider the order declining to exercise jurisdiction, and such a motion does not toll the time for taking an appeal; and (2) the only notice of appeal Father filed was untimely. View "Waldron v. Waldron" on Justia Law

In 2012, the parties divorced. The original divorce decree provided for joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ three children. In 2013, Father field a petition to modify custody, visitation and support. The district court granted Father sole custody, modified the visitation schedule, and required Mother to pay child support in an amount less than the statutory presumptive amount. The district court also awarded expenses under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 37 incurred by Mother’s pro bono attorney and denied Father’s Wyo. R. Civ. P. 11 motion for sanctions against Mother for seeking attorney’s fees and expenses for discovery violations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) deviated from Mother’s presumptive child support obligation; (2) authorized the award of expenses under Rule 37 that were not incurred by Mother; and (3) denied Father’s Rule 11 motion for sanctions. View "Windham v. Windham" on Justia Law