Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

MF was adjudicated a child in need of supervision (CHINS) shortly before his sixteenth birthday. Four months before MF's seventeenth birthday and after MF twice violated his probation, the juvenile court ordered that MF remain in the custody of the Department of Family Services and on probation until his eighteenth birthday. MF appealed, arguing that any CHINS order must terminate when the minor child turns seventeen. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the juvenile court's order to the extent the order purported to have effect beyond MF's seventeenth birthday, holding that the juvenile court did not have the authority to issue a CHINS order that imposed conditions beyond MF's seventeenth birthday. View "In re MF" on Justia Law

Lisa Kisling, the legal guardian of two children with special needs, applied for and received child care assistance benefits up until the time she enrolled in law school. At that time, the Department of Family Services (Department) denied child care assistance benefits to Kisling because her participation in a graduate program in college rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits. The district court reversed, holding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Kisling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in considering Kisling's estoppel claim because that issue was not raised in the proceedings before the OAH. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. v. Kisling" on Justia Law

Upon Father's and Mother's divorce, the parties executed a settlement agreement that awarded Mother primary residential custody of the two children. The agreement was incorporated into the parties' divorce decree. Father later filed a petition to modify the divorce decree, seeking custody of the children. Prior to a hearing, the parties resolved their custody issues. The district court then entered an order interpreting the divorce decree provisions that governed payment of counseling and medical expenses for the parties' children. Father appealed, contending (1) because this case was submitted to the court as a stipulated or agreed case and only queried the meaning of "counseling" generally, the district court improperly answered the question in the context of the parties' dispute; and (2) the court erred in considering extrinsic evidence in analyzing the settlement agreement and in denying Father's motion for a continuance at the hearing. Because Father failed to submit a hearing transcript or statement of evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no error of law appeared on the record; and (2) in this purported agreed on case, the context presented to the district court was presumptively adequate to satisfy the requirements of Koontz v. South Superior. View "Samiec v. Fermelia" on Justia Law

Father filed suit to establish his paternity of ARF. Father sought custody of ARF and asked the district court to order Mother to pay child support. After Mother admitted Father's paternity and asked the district court to order Father to pay child support, the district court granted custody to Mother, ordered Father to pay child support, and found Father owed additional child support for previous years. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's decisions with respect to custody and its imposition of time limits on the parties' trial presentations; but (2) reversed the district court's child support decision, holding that the court's order did not comply with the statutory mandate to set forth the presumptive child support amount. Remanded. View "In re ARF" on Justia Law

After Father failed to pay Mother's attorney's fees in accordance with a district court order in Jensen I, the district court held Father in contempt. As a sanction for contempt, the court ordered Father to pay Mother an additional $600 in attorney's fees. The district court's underlying order awarding attorney's fees to Mother in Jensen I, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court before Father submitted his brief. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the district court's contempt order as a result of the Court's reversal of the district court's award of attorney's fees. View "Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife had four children, one of whom was a disabled adult daughter. Upon the parties' divorce, the district court ruled (1) no support was necessary for the adult daughter because she received Social Security benefits; (2) the parties' teenager should split time between his parents; (3) Wife should have primary custody of the youngest child; (4) Wife was entitled to a few items of property and $149,500 as payment for her share of the remainder of the marital property; and (5) Husband's child support obligation was $751 per month based on a finding that Husband's monthly net income was $5,333. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's order regarding the adult daughter, holding that the daughter was still entitled to support; (2) held that the district court erred in determining Husband's net income for a determination of child support; and (3) held that the district court did not err in its disposition of the marital property. View "Bagley v. Bagley" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned to be appointed permanent guardians of their elderly uncle, Thomas Lankford. The district court dismissed the guardianship petition after finding Petitioners were not qualified to serve as guardians because their potential to inherit from Lankford created a disqualifying conflict of interest. Petitioners appealed, asserting (1) the district court erred in finding a conflict of interest, and (2) in the alternative, the guardianship conflict waiver statute, which allows a court of waive conflicts but limits that authority to conflicts of a spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling of a ward, violated their due process and equal protection rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding a conflict of interest; and (2) Petitioners' constitutional claims were not properly before the Court. View "Utley v. Lankford" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 1990. The parties agreed that each parent would have custody of one child. In 1999, the parties stipulated to a modification of their divorce decree, agreeing that Father would have primary custody of both children. The district court ordered that the parties file further information as to child support, but neither party responded. The case remained inactive until 2003, when Father filed a motion for order to appear and show cause, requesting that the district court order Mother to pay her half of the children's expenses. The court ordered Mother to pay child support and certain related expenses. In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (Department) filed an action to enforce the 2003 order. Instead of enforcing the order, the district court set it aside, ordered that the child support obligation be recalculated, and directed that the revised child support obligation be applied retroactive to 1999. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court was without jurisdiction to modify the 2003 child support order where no petition to modify had been filed. Remanded. View "State, Dep't of Family Servs. v. Powell" on Justia Law

The district court granted Father a divorce from Mother. The divorce decree granted Father primary physical and residential custody of the parties' two children, while Mother was granted "reasonable and liberal visitation." Three years later, Mother filed a motion to modify the custody arrangement. The district court determined that Mother failed to demonstrate that there had been a material and substantive change in circumstances since the last request for custody modification and denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient facts supported the district court's conclusion that Mother failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances surrounding the custody and visitation order, and for that reason, the court was not required to engage in an analysis of whether a change in custody or visitation was in the best interests of the children; and (2) the Court declined to consider Mother's argument that the children's treating counselor's notes and written opinion were admissible into evidence at the motion hearing as business records under Wyo. R. Evid. 803(6) because that issue was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Willis v. Davis" on Justia Law

Wife filed a complaint for divorce from Husband. The district court granted Wife a divorce and distributed all of the property between Husband and Wife. Wife subsequently appealed the property distribution in the divorce decree, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it divided the property contrary to the evidence presented at trial and when it failed to consider the financial condition in which the parties were left after the divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed and awarded Husband his costs and attorney's fees associated with this appeal, holding (1) Wife failed to comply with Wyo. R. App. P. 3.02(b) by failing to provide the Court with a transcript of the district court proceedings; (2) because the Court could not review the evidence, it could not find that the district court abused its discretion in how it divided the parties' property; and (3) because there was no transcript in the record, the Court could not certify that there was reasonable cause to bring this appeal. View "Golden v. Guion" on Justia Law