Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In this termination of parental rights case, police officers found illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia in the room where Mother's two children watched television. The Department of Family Services (DFS) removed the children, placed them in foster care, and agreed on a family service plan with Mother. Mother failed to follow the requirements of her service plan. The district court subsequently terminated Mother's rights to the two children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DFS proved, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) Mother was unfit to have custody and control of the children, (2) the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized if they returned to Mother, and (3) DFS made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the family as required by law. View "In re A.R.C." on Justia Law

Appellant Kelly Robinson was convicted of three misdemeanors and one felony. All of the crimes arose in a domestic violence context. One of Robinson's misdemeanor convictions was the violation of a protection order, which resulted from Robinson mailing a letter to the victim, who had obtained a protection order. Robinson challenged his conviction for violation of the protection order, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the crime charged. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the record on appeal lacked evidence to support the conviction as charged. Because the circuit court found that Robinson's conduct constituted stalking as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-2-506(b), the trial court erred in convicting Robinson under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-4-404(b). Because of the error, the Court reversed the conviction entered pursuant to Section 6-4-404, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment. Remanded. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

Joyce Anderson and Jerry Allen were involved in a long-term, non-marital relationship. Upon separation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement stating that each should have ownership of personal property in their respective possession. Allen later claimed some of the items Anderson took were his and filed a motion seeking recovery of those items through enforcement of the terms of the settlement agreement. The district court determined that Allen failed to claim the personal property at issue in a timely fashion and thus effectively abandoned his claim to it. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision that Allen had no claim to the property at issue but did so on separate grounds. The Court concluded that the settlement agreement granted ownership of the real property, including the shed in which the items at issue were located, to Anderson free of any claim or demand of Allen. All personal property on the land therefore was in Anderson's possession and granted to her under the terms of the settlement agreement. View "Allen v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Paula Christiansen and Victoria Lee Christiansen, both residents of Wyoming, legally married in Canada in 2008. Paula Christiansen filed an action for divorce in Wyoming in 2010. At issue was whether a Wyoming district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a divorce action to dissolve a same-sex marriage lawfully performed in Canada. The court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition for divorce where the court found nothing in Wyoming statutes or policy that closed the doors of the district court to two Wyoming residents seeking a legal remedy to dissolve a legal relationship created under the laws of Canada.View "Christiansen v. Christiansen" on Justia Law