Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding David Cook custody of the two minor children he shared with Charmaine Parker, holding that the district court did not err.When Cook and Parker divorced, Parker received custody of the parties' two children. The children were later taken into protective custody and then placed with Cook when Parker was accused of assaulting the children's older half-sibling. Cook filed a civil case asking the district court to modify the original custody order to award him custody of the children. The district court entered judgment in favor of Cook. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Cook's motion to strike five of Parker's expert witnesses and denied Parker's request to present surrebuttal testimony. View "Parker v. Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part two district court orders in this divorce case - a custody order and a visitation order, holding that the district court abused its discretion in requiring Father to submit to regular alcohol testing during the transition period to joint custody.On appeal, Father argued that the district court erred in awarding primary custody to Mother during the transition period, in implementing a fifteen-month transition plan, and requiring him to submit to regular alcohol testing during the transition. The Supreme Court reversed the alcohol testing requirement and otherwise affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary custody to Mother; (2) abused its discretion in requiring Father to film himself taking a home breath test at least once a week and undergo random tests for nearly one year; and (3) did not commit reversible error when it delayed seven months after the final hearing before entering its custody and visitation orders. View "Mecartney v. Mecartney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the child custody modification order entered by the district court awarding Father primary physical custody of the parties' two children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.When the parties divorced, a stipulated divorce decree awarded them joint legal, physical, and residential custody of their two minor children. The court later granted Mother's motion to modify, concluding that it was in the children's best interests for Mother to have primary residential custody. Father subsequently filed the custody modification issue at issue, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the children's best interests that he be awarded primary residential custody. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the children's best interests to award primary physical custody to Father. View "Gutierrez v. Bradley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dividing marital property between Wife and Husband upon granting Husband a divorce, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the marital property as it did.On appeal, Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion by arbitrarily awarding her an equalization payment of $200,000 and requested that the Court either modify the judgment to $334,789 or remand for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the property in a division it considered fair and equitable and after applying the factors set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-114. View "Innes v. Innes" on Justia Law

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