Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In KMO I, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Mother's appointed attorney on appeal (Attorney) filed a fee motion requesting $121,530 in fees. The district court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $25,000, concluding that it could not, "in good conscience," award attorney's fees in the amount Attorney requested. Attorney appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's fee reduction in this case, holding that Attorney provided no evidence demonstrating that the fee reduction was unreasonable, and the district court did not err in its assessment of the fee request. View "In re KMO" on Justia Law

Mother was the primary residential custodian of Daughter under Mother and Father's divorce decree. Father subsequently filed a motion seeking primary residential custody of Daughter. Mother opposed the change of custody and sought an increase in child support based on a purported increase in Father's income. The district court (1) denied Father's motion for a change of custody, finding no material change in circumstances; and (2) granted Mother's request for an increase in child support. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the child support order and remanded for entry of a proper award, holding that the amount of the child support awarded was not correct under Wyoming's statutory child support tables; and (2) affirmed on all other issues. View "Walker v. Walker" on Justia Law

In 2008, Husband and Wife were divorced pursuant to a stipulated property settlement, child custody, child support agreement. In 2010, Husband petitioned to reopen the divorce decree, alleging that Wife had misrepresented material facts related to the parties' division of debt. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Husband's petition, concluding that any misrepresentation by Wife about certain loans was insufficient to reopen the decree of divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that while Wife may have made misrepresentations concerning the loans, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the debt allocation to Wife did not result in an overall allocation of debt that was mistaken or unfair. View "Campbell v. Hein" on Justia Law

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