Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2013, the district court entered a divorce decree dissolving the marriage of Mother and Father. The court awarded primary custody to Mother and awarded Father liberal visitation. Mother later filed a motion seeking relief from the order awarding visitation under Mont. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). The district court denied the motion and also awarded joint presumptive child support. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the child custody and visitation arrangement aspect of Mother’s motion; but (2) the district court erred by ordering joint presumptive child support without determining that both parties contribute substantially to the children’s expenses as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-304(c). Remanded. View "Loran v. Loran" on Justia Law

Appellant was that father of ARW. Appellees were a couple who were involved in ARW’s life since she was three weeks old. Both Appellant and ARW’s mother executed powers of attorney providing that Appellees could have physical custody of ARW. ARW’s mother subsequently consented to termination of her parental rights and to adoption by Appellees. After Appellant was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of ARW’s friend, Appellees were appointed permanent guardians for ARW without Appellant’s consent. Appellant was convicted, and Appellees initiated this action terminate Appellant’s parental rights. After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to the termination proceedings; (2) did not err in denying Appellant’s motion to set aside the entry of default against him; and (3) properly concluded that Appellees presented sufficient evidence that DRW was unfit to have care and custody of ARW. View "DRW v. DLP" on Justia Law

When Father and Mother were divorced, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties’ son and Father was ordered to pay $400 per month in child support. The district court later entered an order finding Father’s monthly child support obligation to be $880 and ruled that he owed retroactive child support for twenty-seven months. Father appealed. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed, holding that because Father did not bring the Court a record sufficient to permit review of the issues he raised, the district court’s orders and rulings were assumed to be correct. View "Knezovich v. Knezovich" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced in 2010. Mother was granted primary physical and legal custody of the children, and Father was given standard visitation. In 2013, Father filed a petition to modify custody, alleging that Mother was providing an unstable environment for the parties’ youngest daughter, GK. In his petition, Father sought primary custody of GK. The district court granted the petition, concluding that there had been a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare sufficient to warrant modification regarding child custody. A divided Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the changes in Mother’s life created a material change in circumstances warranting the reopening of the existing custody order. View "Kappen v. Kappen" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in 2007, and Mother was awarded primary residential custody of the parties’ child subject to Father’s visitation. In 2013, Father filed a motion requesting that the district court enter judgment against Mother for unpaid day-care expenses incurred by Father. Mother responded by filing a motion to modify the divorce decree as it related to daycare expenses. The district court granted Father’s outstanding claims for child support abatement and eliminated Father’s right to claim child support abatement during periods in which Mother pays for daycare expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in eliminating Father’s ability to claim child support abatement for periods in which Mother pays the costs of daycare; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant prejudgment interest to Father; and (3) Mother was entitled to costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this appeal. View "Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen" on Justia Law

In 2004, after Mother filed a complaint for divorce, Mother and Father entered into a property settlement and child custody agreement. Due to Mother’s problems with alcohol, Father was later granted primary residential custody of the parties’ children. In 2013, Mother filed a petition to modify child support on the basis of her unemployment. The district court denied child support modification, concluding that Mother was not entitled to modification because she was voluntarily unemployed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mother was voluntarily unemployed. View "Levene v. Levene" on Justia Law

The case centered around Appellant’s claim that he was the actual and presumptive father of a ten-year-old child. The district court granted the Mother’s petition to establish that Appellant was not the child’s father. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting Mother’s petition to prove that Appellant was not the child’s biological father under the Wyoming Parentage Act; and (2) not finding that Appellant was a de facto parent or a parent by estoppel because the Court declined to adopt de facto parentage or parentage by estoppel, leaving instead that policy decision to the Wyoming Legislature. View "LP v. LF" on Justia Law

The State filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her two children pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii) and 14-2-309(a)(v). After a trial, the district court determined that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated pursuant to both statutory provisions. Mother appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court was not deprived of its jurisdiction when statutory deadlines were bypassed; (2) the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the district court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to section 14-2-309(a)(v); and (3) Mother waived her contention that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, and Mother’s argument that the cumulative effect of errors violated her due process rights failed. View "SAS v. State" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were divorced in the winter of 2013. Later that year, Mother filed a contempt action asserting that Father had violated the divorce decree in several respects. The district court entered orders (1) holding Father in contempt for failing to provide health insurance coverage and/or proof of insurance for the parties’ daughter; (2) sanctioning Father for failing to exercise summer visitation with the parties’ son; (3) ordering that Mother would have use of outbuildings associated with the residence in which she and the children were entitled to reside under the decree; and (4) requiring Father to pay Mother’s attorney fees associated with the contempt motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence that Father violated an order requiring visitation with his son; (2) because the evidence showed that Father had obtained the required insurance for his daughter, Father’s contempt was not proven by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the district court properly required Father to pay attorney fees Mother incurred when she was required to seek court enforcement of the divorce decree. View "Bullock v. Bullock" on Justia Law

From Lilyanna Knudson’s birth until Ronald Scherer’s (Decedent) death, Knudson believed and considered the Decedent to be her father. After learning that he was not, Knudson filed a petition seeking a determination that she was the Decedent’s heir. Specifically, Knudson argued that, pursuant to the judicially-created doctrine of equitable adoption, she was the daughter and heir of the Decedent. The district court dismissed Knudson’s petition, concluding that Wyoming law does not recognize equitable adoption and that equitable adoption would be contrary to Wyoming’s probate code. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the Court’s interpretation of Wyoming’s probate code, Wyoming does not recognize the doctrine of equitable adoption, and therefore, Knudson was not an heir. View "In re Estate of Scherer" on Justia Law