Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Appellant was the mother of three children who were taken into protective custody and placed into foster care. The Department of Family Services (DFS) later filed a petition to terminate Appellant's parental rights. Because Appellant did not timely file an answer to the petition, default was entered against Appellant. After a default hearing, the district court issued an order terminating Appellant's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant, who failed to timely answer the petition to terminate parental rights, was permitted to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in this appeal; and (2) there was sufficient evidence presented in the default hearing and in the complaint to constitute clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of Appellant's parental rights. View "DMM v. State" on Justia Law

The district court terminated Father's parental rights to his three children after finding by clear and convincing evidence that he was incarcerated for a felony conviction and was unfit to have the custody and control of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not plainly err when it allowed a police report and the testimony of the officer who wrote the report into evidence; (2) the district court did not plainly err when it allowed into evidence the officer's testimony regarding the credibility of a victim's statement; and (3) Mother presented clear and convincing evidence that Father was unfit to have the custody and control of his children. View "M.S.H. v. A.L.H." on Justia Law

Appellant, the mother of two children, appealed a juvenile court's order directing the Department of Family Services (DFS) to pursue a termination of Appellant's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the juvenile court's determination that reunification with Appellant was not in the best interests of Appellant's children; (2) the juvenile court applied the correct evidentiary standard at the evidentiary hearing; and (3) pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-3-431(j), DFS was not required to provide a compelling reason for recommending the permanency plan of termination and adoption over relative guardianship. View "J.O. v. State" on Justia Law