Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering an order requiring shared custody of a child between Mother and Father, holding that the district court erred.Father and Mother shared a child. Father filed a petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support. The district court entered a temporary custody order establishing fifty-fifty shared custody. Two years later, each parent asked for primary physical custody and requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 52(a). More than one year after the bench trial, the district court entered an order requiring shared custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court's delay in issuing the final order was not reversible error; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in holding that the law favors shared custody and in ordering shared custody without adequate Rule 52(a)(1)(A) findings and conclusions explaining how the arrangement was in the child's best interest. View "Castellow v. Pettengill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court adjudicating three minor children as neglected and the order changing the permanency plan for the adoption from reunification of the family to termination of Father's parental rights and adoption, holding that there was no plain error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the juvenile court's failure to insure Father's presence at the adjudication hearing did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the children's permanency; (2) the juvenile court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law when it denied Father the opportunity to participate by phone in the initial hearing and failed to advise him of his rights, but there was no material prejudice to Father; and (3) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Department of Family Services had made reasonable efforts at reunification and that the permanency plan for the children should be changed to adoption. View "FR v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan for Mother and Father's four children from reunification to adoption, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Department of Family Services (DFS) provided reasonable efforts to reunify the children.After an evidentiary permanency hearing the juvenile court found that reunification with Mother and Father was not in the children's best interests and that reasonable efforts to reunify were no longer required because they had been unsuccessful. The court then changed the plan to adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for the juvenile court to conclude that reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Mother and Father had been made and no further efforts were required; and (2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption even though specialized care was not provided to the parents. View "AW v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition for modification of alimony, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Father's request to modify alimony.The parties in this case had two children and were divorced in Connecticut. They entered into a separation agreement that was incorporated by reference into their decree of divorce that set terms for child support and alimony. Father later filed a petition to reduce alimony, asserting that the financial position of both parties had changed substantially since their divorce. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably find that Father failed to show a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of his alimony obligation. View "Boyce v. Jarvis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court dismissing this juvenile case, holding that Mother's opening brief misstated the record and failed to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.Mother had six children, four of which were minors. The two fathers of three of the minor children were involved in this case. Due to allegations of abuse and neglect, the juvenile court ordered the children to be placed into protective custody. The three children were placed with their fathers and the fourth was placed in a foster home. Later, the district court granted the fathers temporary custody of their children, and the fathers moved for discharge of the three children from the juvenile court action. The juvenile court granted the fathers' motion and dismissed the juvenile case. Mother filed a notice of appeal, listing twelve orders from which she was appealing. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the juvenile court's dismissal order because Mother's brief misstated the record and failed to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. View "In re FP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Father custody of the parties' minor child subject to Mother's visitation, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Mother's motion for an order to show cause.Upon the parties' divorce, the district court awarded Father custody of the parties' child subject to Mother's specified visitation. After Father and the child moved to Bahrain, Mother, who lived in Russia, filed a petition to modify custody and visitation. Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause. The district court dismissed the show cause motion and granted Father's modification petition, applying the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Mother's show cause motion for inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA. View "Pokrovskaya v. Genderen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying KA's unopposed petition for adoption of minor child under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-22-101 et seq., holding that the adoption statutes did not prohibit KA from adopting the child.KA sought to adopt his ex-wife's son, with whom he had a loving relationship. Until recently, the child believed KA was his biological father, and when he learned the truth, he requested that KA adopt him. KA filed an unopposed petition to adopt the child. The district court denied the petition on the grounds that KA was married and thus not a "single adult," he did not jointly filed to adopt the child with his current wife, and his current wife was not the child's mother. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that that the adoption statutes did not prohibit KA from adopting the child. View "In re Adoption of ATWS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's petition to modify custody and support of the parties' children, holding that there was no due process violation or abuse of discretion.Two months after the district court entered its order granting primary physical custody of the parties' children to Mother and ordering Father to pay child support Father filed his petition to modify custody and support. Father alleged that a material change in circumstances had arisen since the previous custody and support order. After a trial, the district court denied the motion, concluding that there had been on material change in circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Father's due process rights by denying his request to call the guardian ad litem to testify as to her bias; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by refusing to deduct mortgage interest to determine Father's income for purposes of calculating child support. View "Lemus v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Father's Wyo. R. Crim. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from the district court's child custody and support order, holding that Rule 60(b)(4) could not relieve Father from the district court's child support order.As part of the parties' divorce decree, the district court ordered Father to pay the $50 minimum support obligation prescribed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2304(b) to Mother. Father later brought this action moving from relief from the child custody and support order, arguing that the child support order was void because Wyo. section 20-2304(b) is unconstitutional. The motion was deemed denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the child support order would be voidable, not void, Rule 60(b)(4) could not relieve Father from the child support order. View "Carroll v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to Child, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.The Wyoming Department of Family Services filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to Child, but Mother failed timely to respond. The clerk of the district court proceeded to enter default against Mother. On appeal, Mother argued that the district court violated her due process rights by holding the evidentiary default hearing by video conference and by not giving her a meaningful chance to be heard regarding Child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother's due process rights were not violated when the district court held the default hearing by video conference or when it limited Mother's participation at the hearing. View "Herden v. State, ex rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law