Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was the mother of five children. After Appellant was arrested, the children were taken into protective custody. The county attorney filed a neglect petition in juvenile court, and Appellant admitted to the allegations of neglect. Some months later, the Department of Family Services filed a petition to terminate Appellant's parental rights alleging (1) the children had been neglected, efforts to rehabilitate the family had been unsuccessful, and the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by returning to their mother; and (2) the children had been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, and Appellant was unfit to have custody and control of her children. The district court found that the evidence supported termination of Appellant's rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the district court's decision. View "HMH v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced. Mother was initially granted custody of their two children, but Father was later awarded sole custody of the children. Father subsequently relinquished physical custody of the younger child, AZS, to the children's maternal grandparents (Grandparents) after AZS was hospitalized for an appendectomy. The parties' older child, BJS, also moved to Wyoming to live with Grandparents. Thereafter, Mother petitioned for modification of custody, again seeking custody of the children. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, as Mother failed to satisfy her burden to provide a complete record for the Court's review, and Mother's brief failed to adhere to the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure. View "Zeitner v. Shank" on Justia Law

While Mark and Elizabeth Dowell were still married, Mark created an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT) naming Elizabeth as is primary beneficiary and their two children as contingent beneficiaries. After the couple divorced, Mark filed a petition to modify the trust, contending that he did not need Elizabeth's consent to modify because she had relinquished her beneficial interest in the property settlement agreement incorporated into the divorce decree. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mark. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parties' divorce degree did not divest Elizabeth of her status as the primary beneficiary of the ILIT as a matter of law. Remanded with instructions to grant Elizabeth's motion for summary judgment. View "Dowell v. Dowell" on Justia Law

This opinion encompassed two separate cases that were consolidated for the purpose of decision. One of the appellants was the mother of KAT, SAT, and JGS. The other appellant was the father of JGS. Following a bench trial, the district court terminated Mother's and Father's parental rights to the minor children. Both parents appealed, claiming that the Department of Family Services (DFS) failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that their parental rights should be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DFS presented clear and convincing evidence to support the district court's decision to terminate Mother's rights to the three minor children and Father's rights to JGS. View "NLT v. State, Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant and JLA were the biological parents of AMP. After JLA and JJA began living together, JJA filed a petition in district court seeking to adopt AMP. The petition alleged that Appellant's consent to the adoption was not required pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-22-110(a)(iv) because he had willfully failed to contribute to the support of AMP for a period of one year immediately prior to the filing of the petition to adopt. Appellant responded to the petition but did not otherwise appear in the action. The district court granted the adoption of AMP to JJA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite Appellant's claim that his failure to pay AMP's support was not willful, the evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Appellant willfully ignored his obligation to support his child; and (2) because Appellant did not pay his accumulated arrearages, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the adoption. View "In re Adoption of AMP" on Justia Law

Appellant Donna Teeples was to receive a cash payment from her ex-husband, Neal Teeples, the appellee, as a result of the division of their marital assets pursuant to a divorce. Appellant claimed that the payment, made with the funds of an S corporation owned jointly prior to the divorce, impermissibly increased her tax liability and was made with funds that were rightfully owed to her as a prior shareholder in the company. The district court found that Appellee's payment out of the S account was not an income distribution from the corporation, nor did that payment cause Appellant to incur an additional tax liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the payment received by Appellant satisfied the terms of the property settlement agreement pursuant to the parties' divorce. View "Teeples v. Teeples" on Justia Law

PRG (Father) appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating his parental rights to his four minor children. Father contended that the district court erred when it refused to use his proposed jury verdict form. He also claimed that the State Department of Family Services (DFS) presented insufficient evidence to terminate his parental rights and challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the special verdict form given to the jury was appropriate and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Father's proposed verdict form. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re Termination of Parental rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, and AKO" on Justia Law

HJO (Mother), the biologic mother of nine minor children, appealed a district court's order following a jury verdict terminating her parental rights. Mother contested the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State. Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate her parental rights, the appropriateness of the special verdict form submitted to the jury, the constitutionality of the termination statute which set out the burden of proof, and alleged cumulative errors. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and accordingly affirmed the termination of Mother's parental rights. View "In re termination of Parental Rights to: KMO, DMO, CMO, AKO, DKO, MTO, ABO, EEO, and JBO" on Justia Law

In combined appeals that arose from post-divorce proceedings, Appellant Joshua Hanson appealed a district court's order denying his petition to modify the parties' divorce decree which granted Appellee Melanie (Belveal) Hanson primary physical custody of their minor child, and to grant him primary physical custody of their child. He also appealed the court's order that ordered him pay his ex-wife's attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending his petition to modify custody. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court affirmed both orders. View "Hanson v. Belveal" on Justia Law

Father resisted a petition by Stepfather to adopt Father's three youngest children. The district court approved the adoption over Father's objections. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) calculating that arrearages in Father's child support payments; (2) failing to give Father credit for social security payments made directly to Mother as child support; (3) finding Stepfather fit and competent to adopt the children; (4) failing to consider information contained in Father's answer to the petition for adoption, in Father's proposed findings of fact following the hearing in this matter, and in a letter sent to the court by Stepfather's attorney after the hearing; and (5) denying Father's motions for visitation with the children. View "SL v. CAD" on Justia Law