Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In his appeal from a divorce decree, Husband challenged the property distribution, the award of attorney's fees to Wife, and the order that he pay one-half of an orthodontia bill incurred by Wife's children, who were never adopted by Husband. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the couple's property and debt, and the court did not err in mandating that Husband pay one-half of the orthodontia bill; (2) because Husband did not include a hearing transcript with his appeal, he did not meet his burden of providing the Court with a complete record upon which it could base a decision as to his argument that the district court's award of attorney's fees to Wife was inappropriate; (3) the decree of divorce was properly entered; and (4) although Husband's efforts on appeal were unsuccessful in proving that the district court abused its discretion in its distribution of the marital property, the appeal was not so lacking in merit as to qualify for sanctions. View "Rosendahl v. Rosendahl" on Justia Law

Mother's three children were removed from her custody after they were adjudicated to be neglected. The juvenile court first ruled that the children should temporarily live with their grandparents and father and later ruled that the children should remain with their grandparents and father rather than be returned to Mother's custody. Mother appealed, arguing (1) the juvenile court erred when it ordered, without notice to Mother and without conducting an evidentiary hearing, that her children remain with their grandparents and father; (2) the juvenile court erred by failing to apply Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-3-405 in deciding the State's motion to change custody and placement of the minor children; and (3) the juvenile court's findings of fact were not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by temporarily maintaining the placement of the children with their grandparents and father because Mother was given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard; (2) the juvenile court's conclusions of law were decided under the correct statute; and (3) the juvenile court did not err in finding that the statutory requirements for out of home placement were met. View "D.R.S. v. Dep't of Family Servs." on Justia Law

Father was ordered to pay child support and soon developed child support arrearages. Later, Father became disabled. Father and his children received lump sum Social Security disability benefits payments for the period retroactive to the date Father became eligible for the benefits. In a series of orders, the district court gave Father credit (1) against his child support arrearages back to the date he became eligible for benefits, and (2) for amounts that had been withheld from his monthly disability payments under an income withholding order for the period after he became disabled but before he became eligible to receive benefits. The court, however, refused to credit any of the disability payments against arrearages existing on the date Father became disabled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court may not credit Social Security disability benefits paid to dependent children against child support arrearage owed before the obligor became disabled. Because such benefits belong to the children, not the obligor, they are not available to be applied as a credit or offset to amounts owed by the obligor. View "Swaney v. State" on Justia Law