Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) learned that JM, a minor, had several unexcused absences from school, a deputy count attorney filed a petition alleging that JM was a neglected child because Mother had failed to provide adequate education for JM’s well being. Following a hearing, the juvenile court entered an order of neglect. Mother appealed, claiming that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition because the district court was required to give her notice and counseling before the petition was filed, and she did not receive such notice or counseling. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compulsory attendance statutes upon which Mother relied, which require school districts to give parents notice or counseling based on students’ unexcused absences, do not apply when a juvenile petition is filed by a prosecuting attorney under the Child Protection Act on the basis of a complaint from DFS alleging neglect. View "In re JM" on Justia Law

Father filed for divorce from Mother in 2011. After a trial, the trial court entered a divorce decree granting Mother physical custody of the children and awarding visitation to Father, ordering Father to pay child support, dividing the marital property, and awarding alimony to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in all respects, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) the division of property between the parties; (2) awarding alimony to Mother; (3) its calculation of child support; and (4) determining the custody and visitation of the children.View "Stevens v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced several years ago, and Father was awarded primary custody of the parties’ minor child. Mother was ordered to pay child support of $272 per month. Mother recently filed a petition to modify custody and child support. The proper amount of Mother’s child support payments was tried to the district court, which modified the child support obligation of Mother to $419 per month. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court improperly determined Father’s income, which caused the court to miscalculate her child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in computing Father’s monthly net income as it did for child support purposes. View "Ackerman v. Ott" on Justia Law

Jessica Hofhine filed for divorce from Mike Hofhine. The parties entered into a property settlement stipulation agreement that was incorporated into the decree of divorce entered by the district court. The next year, Jessica filed a “Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and Decree of Divorce,” claiming that she was entitled to an “income equalization” payment under the terms of the parties' divorce decree. The district court denied the motion on the basis that Jessica did not ask the court for compensation or equalization before the decree of divorce was entered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its interpretation and application of the legal documents governing the property distribution between Jessica and Mike when it concluded that Jessica was not entitled to equalization of income under the parties’ divorce decree; (2) did not violate Jessica’s due process rights by refusing to permit any party or witness testimony at the hearing on Jessica’s motion; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Mike. View "Hofhine v. Hofhine" on Justia Law