Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Pursuant to a California court order, Father had sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ child, subject to limited visitation by Mother. Mother filed a petition for modification of the California order seeking modification of the custody, child support, visitation, and bond provisions. The district court denied Mother’s modification motion, ruling that Mother was required to establish a material change of circumstances in order to warrant a change in custody or visitation but that Mother did not meet that burden. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred by failing to give full faith and credit to the terms of the California order, which specifically allowed a change in the terms of visitation when it would be in the child’s best interests; but (2) did not err in concluding that there was no material change in circumstances that would justify a change in custody. Remanded so the district court could conduct a best interests analysis to determine if modification of the visitation provisions of the California order was warranted. View "Gjertsen v. Ter Haar" on Justia Law

Sandra Greenmeyer and Jacob Greenmeyer divorced in 1994. The divorce decree awarded Sandra a portion of Jacob’s railroad retirement benefits. Jacob retired in 2009 and began receiving his retirement benefits. In 2013, Sandra began receiving retirement benefits. In 2014, Sandra filed a motion seeking an order requiring Jacob to pay to her the retirement benefits awarded in the divorce decree that he had been receiving. The district court granted the motion and ordered Jacob to pay Sandra a total of $33,320. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s order did not conflict with the Railroad Retirement Board’s regulations; and (2) because the divorce decree awarded certain retirement benefits to Sandra, she was entitled to recover her property from Jacob. View "Greenmeyer v. Greenmeyer" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in 2004, and three children were born to the couple. In 2012, Father filed a complaint seeking a divorce. After a trial in 2014, the district court granted primary custody to Father and visitation to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) awarding primary physical custody to Father; (2) requiring the parties to split the children’s medical costs not covered by health insurance; and (3) modifying its original findings of fact and conclusions of law by reducing Mother’s visitation below the forty percent statutory threshold. View "Walter v. Walter" on Justia Law

The year after Mother and Father were married, Mother filed a complaint for divorce. The next year, the district court entered an order enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement. Thereafter, Father filed a motion asking the district court to enter a divorce decree and attached a proposed decree. Mother submitted her own proposed decree. The district court approved and entered Father’s proposed decree, finding that that decree followed more closely the terms of the settlement. The decree awarded Father primary residential custody of the parties’ minor daughter and calculated child support. The Supreme Court affirmed the divorce decree in all respects except the provision requiring Mother to pay retroactive child support, holding (1) Father was not estopped from claiming the settlement agreement was binding when he previously took the position that it was not; (2) the district court did not err in enforcing the settlement agreement where the court concluded that the parties’ agreement was in the child’s best interest; (3) the district court did not err in failing to apply the joint presumptive child support found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-304(c); and (4) district court erred in ordering Mother to both reimburse Father for travel costs and to pay retroactive child support. View "Wright v. Wright" on Justia Law