Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After an adjudicatory hearing in this abuse and neglect case, Appellant was found to have neglected her three children. Appellant appealed, arguing that she was denied fundamental due process rights because the trial court declined to grant a motion to dismiss or to strike witnesses after claimed discovery violations by the State and because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in dealing with the claimed discovery violations; (2) Appellant received due process; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of neglect. View "DL v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 2007. In the litigation that followed the divorce, the district court granted Mother's motion to modify the visitation schedule, denied Father's request to present expert testimony, denied Father's claims for child support abatement, denied Father's petition to modify child support, partially reimbursed Father's day-care expenses, and awarded attorney's fees to Mother. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court abused its discretion (1) in finding father was not entitled to an abatement in child support; (2) by only partially reimbursing Father for day-care expenses because the divorce decree did not require Father to pay any day-care expenses while he was paying child support; and (3) in awarding attorney's fees against Father because Mother presented insufficient evidence indicating that the fees requested were reasonable. The Court otherwise affirmed. Remanded. View "Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen" on Justia Law

Wife and Husband were divorced by decree. Husband appealed, claiming that the district court (1) abused its discretion in imputing his monthly income and ordering him to pay child support for several months when he was living in the marital home after Wife filed for divorce and ordering him to pay half the cost of the children's past and future activities as an upward deviation of child support; and (2) deprived him of due process in making the above rulings without evidentiary support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Husband waived his right to assert these claims on appeal. View "Verheydt v. Verheydt" on Justia Law