Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Wife and Husband were divorced by stipulated decree. In post-divorce contempt proceedings, each party claimed the other party was in contempt. The district court (1) concluded that both parties were in contempt for failing to list to martial residence for sale as required by the decree and ordered the home listed by a specified date; and (2) concluded Husband was not in contempt for failing to transfer half of his investment accounts and stock options to Wife but ordered Husband to transfer an investment account and three stock options to Wife. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly modified the stipulated decree when it ordered Wife to share any loss on the home if it sold, or, if it did not sell, to pay one-half of the mortgage payment; and (2) did not err in not ordering Husband to pay Wife’s fees and costs. View "McAdam v. McAdam" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the parents of AD, born in 2009. In 2011, Father filed a complaint for child custody seeking primary physical custody of AD. After a trial, the district court awarded Father primary physical custody of AD, granted Mother liberal visitation with AD, and ordered Mother to pay $289 per month in child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the visitation schedule ordered by the district court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its order on child support; and (3) the district court’s limitation of Father’s cross-examination did not result in any deprivation of Father’s right to due process.View "Davidson v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

In 2012, Father filed a motion for order to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the visitation and communication provisions of the parties’ 2004 decree regarding custody of the parties’ two daughters. After a hearing, the district court found Mother in contempt of court and sanctioned her by (1) expanding Father’s visitation, (2) requiring Mother to pay for the children’s plane tickets for a winter break and spring break, (3) requiring Mother to post a bond if she did not fulfill the remedial portions of the order regarding visitation, and (4) directing Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees and the guardian ad litem fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in indirect civil contempt of court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the remedial sanctions; and (3) Father was not entitled to sanctions against Mother and her appellate counsel. View "Shindell v. Shindell" on Justia Law