Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's request for a jury trial in this termination of parental rights case, holding that the district court exercised sound judgment under the circumstances.The Department of Family Services brought an action to terminate Mother's parental rights to her son. Mother failed to make a timely demand for a jury trial pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 38 (Rule 38) and later requested that the district court grant a jury trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 39(b). The district court denied Mother's request and subsequently terminated her parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the order denying Mother's Rule 39 motion was not a final appealable order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request for a jury trial. View "Gipson v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Wife's motion for relief filed under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 60(a) from a divorce decree entered in 2003, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying Rule 60(a) motion.At issue was the provision in the parties' stipulated decree of divorce that granted Wife fifty percent of the marital portion of Husband's disposable retired pay under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. In her Rule 60(a) motion, Wife argued that the formula's use of the word "months" rather than the term "reserve points" prevented her from collecting her share of Husband's military retired pay. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the district court's denial of Wife's motion for relief, holding that the decree's use of "months" instead of "reserve points" was a clerical mistake requiring correction. View "Stone v. Stone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the petition brought by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate the parental rights of Mother to her child, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.After a hearing, the district court held that the Department of Family Services (DFS) had presented clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights to her child should be terminated under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v). The court further held that termination would be in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the district court's holding that DFS made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate and reunify Mother and her child under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii). View "Alcorn v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Father's petition to modify a child custody order granting Mother primary custody of the parties' daughter (Child), holding that there was no abuse of discretion during the proceedings below.The original child custody order granted Mother primary custody of Child. Father later petitioned the court to modify the order, claiming that the original order had proved unworkable due to ambiguity in its terms. After a trial, the district court concluded that a material change of circumstances had occurred since the original order and that it was in Child's best interests for the parties to have shared custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that there had been a material change of circumstances affecting Child's welfare since the original custody and visitation order and that Child's best interests would be served by granting the parties shared custody. View "Gardels v. Bowling" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion its division of the parties' marital property.On appeal, Wife challenged the district court's division of marital property, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in its calculation of the equalization payment due to Wife from Husband. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife failed to demonstrate clear grounds for altering the property distribution; and (2) the court's disposition of the marital estate was neither so unfair nor so inequitable that it was unreasonable. View "D'Anzi v. D'Anzi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting Father's petition to modify the parties' divorce decree by awarding Father primary physical custody of the children and restricting Mother's visitation with the children, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.On appeal, Mother argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by suspending her right to overnight visitation with the children for part of the time the modification action was pending. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in awarding primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties' two children to Father; and (2) Mother was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "Baer v. Baer" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Husband's motions to continue the bench trial and the court's division of marital property, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After seventeen years of marriage, the parties in this case divorced. Husband appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional due process in denying his motions to continue the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not deny Husband due process by denying Husband's motions to continue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and debts. View "Engebretsen v. Engebretsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction over a child custody dispute to Texas pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 20-5-306, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and relinquished jurisdiction.Less than a week after Child's birth, Mother filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, and child support. Thereafter, Mother moved to Texas. The district court then entered an order establishing Father's paternity of Child and awarding Mother primary custody. Four years after Mother and Child moved, Mother petitioned a Texas district court to modify visitation and compel Father's participation in parenting facilitation. The Texas court contacted the Wyoming court to discuss the matter of jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Wyoming court determined Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction to Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify the child custody order after finding Wyoming was an inconvenient forum; and (2) did not violate Father's due process rights by not requiring the parties to file written pleadings in Wyoming. View "Ruiz v. Fribourg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the petition filed by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate Father's parental rights, holding that Father was not entitled to relief on his claims of error on appeal.On appeal, Father argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the termination proceedings and that the district court erred in denying his motion to set aside the entry of default. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) because Wyo. Stat. 14-2-318(a) does not create a mandatory right to counsel, it does not create a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights cases; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motions to set aside the entry of default. View "Roberts v. State, Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court allowing Wife trial counsel to withdraw from representation several weeks prior to a divorce bench trial, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted counsel's motion to withdraw without conditioning the withdrawal upon the substitution of other counsel by written appearance.On appeal, Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion under the circumstances because no "extraordinary circumstances" were cited, as required under Rule 102(c) of the Wyoming Uniform Rules for District Courts to allow her trial counsel to withdraw without first obtaining substitute counsel. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude extraordinary circumstances existed to allow Wife's counsel to withdraw without requiring substitution of counsel. View "McGill v. McGill" on Justia Law