Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Appellant was the mother of LNP. After Grandparents took LNP into their care, they petitioned for temporary guardianship of LNP, which the district court granted. Grandparents subsequently moved to convert the temporary guardianship to a plenary guardianship. In response, Appellant filed a motion to terminate the temporary guardianship. Mother then filed a motion to vacate the temporary guardianship, alleging that LNP was an Indian child as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that the court had failed to comply with the provisions of the ICWA in granting the temporary guardianship. After a hearing, the district court granted the guardianship petition and denied Appellant's request to terminate the guardianship. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in holding the hearing, district court (1) did not comply with the ICWA's ten-day notice requirement, but the error was harmless; (2) received testimony from a qualified expert witness as required by the ICWA; and (3) received clear and convincing evidence that showed LNP's return to Appellant would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage as required by the ICWA. View "In re Guardianship of LNP" on Justia Law

In 2008, the district court entered a default judgment and order establishing Father's paternity of a child and ordering him to pay child support. In 2011, the Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a petition for an order to show cause as to why Father should not be held in contempt of court for failing to pay child support. After Father requested counsel, the district court appointed counsel to represent Father. DFS objected to the court's order appointing counsel. The district court denied DFS's objection, ruling that due process required the state to provide an indigent party with counsel in a civil contempt proceeding for non-payment of child support when incarceration was one of the possible penalties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that appointment of counsel was not required because Wyoming has sufficient substitute procedural safeguards to protect indigent obligors against the possibility of wrongful incarceration. View "State, Dep't of Family Servs. v. Currier" on Justia Law

While Mother was living in Texas with her two girls, aged four and three, Mother contacted her mother (Grandmother), who lived in Wyoming, to report that her boyfriend (Boyfriend) had bitten her children. Grandmother brought the children to Wyoming. Grandmother contacted the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS), which led to the State filing juvenile petitions alleging that each girl was a neglected child. The district court adjudicated the children as neglected. Mother and Boyfriend appealed, contending that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) because this case was an interstate child custody dispute, the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Wyoming's Child Protection Act; (2) however, the district court had emergency jurisdiction under Wyoming's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA); and (3) therefore, the court's findings that the children were abused and Mother were not protected from the abuse were not in error, but the remainder of of the court's orders were vacated. Remanded for entry of orders that comply with the UCCJEA provisions governing a court's exercise of emergency jurisdiction. View "SC v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Mother and Father shared joint custody of their two children after their divorce. In 2011, Mother filed a notice of intent to relocate, indicating that she intended to move with the children to Virginia. Father subsequently filed a petition for modification of custody alleging that Mother's anticipated move constituted a material change in circumstances with respect to custody and visitation. Following the criteria set forth in Watt v. Watt, the district court concluded that Father had not established that Mother's relocation constituted a material change of circumstances sufficient to warrant consideration of a change in custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Watt's prohibition against considering relocation as a factor contributing to a material change in circumstances was overruled; and (2) remand was required to consider how the absence of the presumption in favor of the relocating, custodial parent created in Watt will affect the court's decision in this case. View "Arnott v. Arnott" on Justia Law