Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Kevin and Darcy Guilles' co-guardianship of DEP, the child of Diona Palu, holding that the Guilles failed to provide an adequate record to review the issues raised on appeal.On appeal, the Guilles asserted that the district court deprived them of due process by not providing them notice that it intended to address Palu's motion to terminate the guardianship at a scheduled hearing and that the court's parental fitness finding was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record on appeal was inadequate to review either the Guilles' due process claim or the district court's parental fitness finding. View "In re Guardianship of DEP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court holding Mother in contempt for denying Father visitation with their child during summer and for the Thanksgiving holiday, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in determining that she willfully violated the divorce decree. Specifically, Mother argued that she could not have willfully violated the decree because it was no clear, specific, and unambiguous about summer visitation or about how to conduct holiday visitation during a global pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found Mother in contempt for denying Father summer and Thanksgiving visitation. View "Burrow v. Sieler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court ordering that a permanency plan for minor siblings IM, NM, and AM be changed to adoption and finding that the Department of Family Services (DFS) be relieved of making further reasonable efforts to reunify, holding that there was no error.DFS recommended changing the minor siblings' permanency plan from a concurrent plan of adoption or reunification to adoption. After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court ordered that the permanency plan be changed to adoption and ruled that DFS could cease making reasonable efforts to reunify. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not err in ruling that DFS could cease reasonable efforts following a change in the permanency plan to adoption; and (2) the admission of DFS's Exhibit A did not violate Mother's right to due process. View "RR v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this divorce case awarding Husband all of the interest in his business and ordering him to pay Wife $100,000 to equalize the property distribution and allowing Wife to take the parties' child to church during Husband's visitation, holding that the judgment against the business was in error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by assigning a value to Husband's business; (2) did not abuse its discretion by requiring Husband to make the equalization payment to Wife within 120 days of the divorce; (3) erred by awarding a judgment against Husband's business, a nonparty to the divorce proceeding; and (4) did not violate Husband's constitutional rights to parent or to freedom of religion by allowing Wife to take the child to church during Husband's visitation time. View "Snyder v. Snyder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court modifying the court's divorce decree and awarding Father primary physical custody of the parties' son, holding that there was no error.In the divorce decree, the court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the child and gave Mother primary physical custody. Mother subsequently filed a petition to modify custody. In response, Father counterclaimed for custody modification, requesting primary legal and physical custody of the child. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court awarded the parties joint custody of the child and Father primary physical custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion to remove and replace the guardian ad litem for the custody modification proceedings; and (2) adequately considered Mother's abuse allegations prior to modifying custody. View "Hays v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant Father's petition to modify child support, holding that the district court did not improperly impute Mother's net monthly income at $3,975.In 2018, the district court modified the parties' original parenting agreement as to their child and ordered Mother to pay child support to Father in the amount of $245 per month. In 2019, Father filed a petition to modify child support, asserting that Mother's income had increased, thus warranting a change in child support. The district court calculated a presumptive child support obligation for both parents and found Mother's share of the total presumptive child support obligation to be $597 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imputing the parties' respective incomes for child support purposes. View "Snowden v. Jaure" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering the guardianship of ARB, a minor child, to terminate, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that exceptional circumstances did not warrant continuation of the guardianship.Mother, Father, and Grandparents petitioned the district court to appoint Grandparents as ARB's co-guardians. The district court granted the petition. Three years later, Mother filed a petition to terminate the guardianship, arguing that it was no longer necessary and that it was in ARB's best interests to live with her. After a hearing, the district court issued a decision letter terminating the guardianship effective upon completion of a transition plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the great weight of the evidence showed that Mother was a fit parent at the time of the hearing, the guardianship was no longer necessary, and no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons warranted an exception to the principle that a fit parent is entitled to custody of her child. View "In re Guardianship of ARB" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the child support order requiring Father to pay post-majority support for his child, Zao, while Zao was attending college, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it ordered post-majority support.At issue was the second motion to modify support filed by the Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement Division. The trial court found that Zao suffered from phenylketonuria, a metabolic disorder that required a special diet and rendered Zao disabled and incapable of self-support. The court then ordered Father to continue paying support of $375 per month after high school as long as Zao was enrolled in full-time college. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's findings were unsupported by the evidence. View "O'Roake v. State, ex rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgments of the district court granting in part and denying in part Mother's fifth motion for order to show cause and finding Father in contempt of court upon Mother's sixth motion to show cause, holding that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Mother $100 in attorney fees.After Mother and Father divorced Mother filed several post-divorce motions in the district court. At issue was her latest two motions - her fifth and sixth motion for order to show cause why Father should not be held in contempt for allegedly harassing communications since their divorce. The district court granted in part Mother's fifth motion and awarded her $100 in attorney fees. Upon Mother's sixth motion to show cause the district court found Father in contempt of court and awarded Mother attorney fees. The Supreme Court primarily affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Mother's due process rights in refusing to consider Mother's exhibits at the hearing on the fifth motion; (2) did not err when it refused to visit its ruling on the fifth motion; and (3) abused its discretion when it awarded Mother $100 in attorney fees related to her fifth motion without explanation. View "Heimer v. Heimer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the Wyoming Department of Family Service's petition to terminate Father's and Mother's parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v), holding that there was sufficient evidence for the district court to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights.After a four-day bench trial, the district court held that the Department proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother's and Father's parental rights should be terminated under sections 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v) and that it was in the child's best interest to terminate their parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) the Department presented sufficient evidence for the district court to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights under section 14-2-309(a)(v). View "Hood v. State" on Justia Law