Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

In 2014, Tana Brown filed a complaint seeking a divorce from Darold Brown. Six days later, the district court signed a proposed stipulated decree of divorce. Ten months later, Tana moved to vacate or modify the divorce decree. After trial was scheduled, a scheduling conference was held and resulted in the entry of a scheduling order. Tana then filed a motion for sanctions asserting that Darold had not complied with a deadline in the scheduling order. The district court granted the motion for sanctions, imposing the requested sanction of prohibiting Darold from presenting witness testimony or exhibits at trial. After a trial, the district court granted physical custody of the parties’ children to Tana and divided remaining property and debt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions. View "Brown v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2015, Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights. The district court granted the petition, finding that Mother had proven grounds to terminate Father’s parental rights by clear and convincing evidence and that it was in the children’s best interest to do so. In so ruling, the court determined that Father had left his children in Mother’s care without provision for support and without communication for at least one year and that Father’s letters and cards to his children were incidental communications which did not prevent termination. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the communications Father directed to his children were not merely incidental, and therefore, the requirement that there be no communication from the absent parent for a period of at least one year was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. View "RA v. AW" on Justia Law

Mother filed for divorce from Father. After Father failed timely to file an answer to Mother’s complaint the clerk of court entered default. Father moved to set aside the entry of default. After a hearing, which Father did not attend, the district court entered a default divorce decree. The district court denied Father’s subsequently-filed motion to set aside entry of default and default divorce decree, finding that Father received notice of the hearing on default. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not violate Father’s due process rights when it held the default hearing on default in Father’s absence or in issuing the default divorce decree; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its distribution of the parties’ property and debts or in its child support calculations. View "Peak v. Peak" on Justia Law

In 2005, the district court appointed Brenda Clark as the guardian of MKH, who was born not long after the appointment. In 2006, the court extended the guardianship. In 2014, Father filed a petition seeking to vacate the 2005 order. Father then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter its 2005 order appointing Clark as MKH’s guardian because MKH was not yet born. The district court entered an order granting Father’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and declared the 2005 and 2006 orders void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a court may not appoint a guardian for an unborn child; but (2) the 2005 order appointing a guardian did not rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect. View "Clark v. Huffer" on Justia Law

SO was in the legal custody of the Wyoming Department of Family Services and had been in the physical care of Foster Parents since she was three days old. The grandmother and step-grandfather of SO (together, Grandparents) filed a motion seeking to transfer placement of SO from Foster Parents to Grandparents. The juvenile court denied the motion and ordered that SO should continue to be placed with Foster Parents, determining that it was in the best interests of SO to remain in the custody of Foster Parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying Grandparents’ motion to place SO with them. View "In re SO" on Justia Law

Father and Mother, who never married but had a son, stipulated to an order setting custody and visitation. This opinion inferred from the information that Father was the custodial parent and that Mother had defined visitation. A year and a half after the stipulated order was entered, Father filed a “Petition to Modify Visitation and Motion for Contempt and Restraining Order,” asserting that a material change in circumstances occurred and seeking to have Mother held in contempt for failing to pay child support. The district court denied the petition to modify and granted the motion for contempt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by (1) denying Father’s petition to modify Mother’s visitation after finding that there was no material change in circumstances, and (2) conducting the modification hearing as it did. View "ELA v. AAB" on Justia Law

Child was born to Mother and Father in 2003. Within the next year, Mother’s current husband came into her and her son’s life. In 2015, Mother filed a petition to change Child’s surname to Sowers-Collision. The district court denied the petition, ruling that changing Child’s surname would be detrimental to Father’s interests under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 1-25-101. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to consider the best interest of Child when it denied her petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the state of the record in this case made it impossible to determine whether the district court in fact considered the best interest of the child, the Court could not conclude that the district court failed to consider the question. View "Sowers-Collison v. Hansley" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 2004 and agreed to share custody of their two children, Daughter and Son. In 2011, the parties stipulated to a modification of custody providing that Daughter would live with Mother permanently while Son would continue with shared custody. The court subsequently granted in part Mother’s motion for an order modifying the judgment and divorce decree by requiring Father to pay a greater amount of child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) modification of child support was proper; and (2) the district court did not err in its calculation of Father’s child support obligation. View "Zupan v. Zupan" on Justia Law

Mother and Father shared custody of their child pursuant to a custody order that provided for the parties to alternate custody on a weekly basis. The custody order included a drug testing requirement allowing Mother to make one request per month that Father submit to a drug test. If the test is negative, Mother must reimburse Father for the cost of the test before making another request. Father later filed a show cause motion alleging that Mother had violated the order by failing to allow him his visitation and reimburse him for a negative test. Mother filed her own show cause motion alleging that Father violated the drug testing requirement. The district court granted Father’s motion and denied Mother’s motion and ordered Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees and the costs of the negative drug test. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding that Father did not violate the custody order; and (2) erred in finding that Mother willfully violated the custody order, but the court’s granting of relief is nevertheless upheld because Mother’s conduct did deprive Father of visitation and reimbursement of drug testing costs to which he was entitled under the custody order. View "JLK v. MAB" on Justia Law

Three consolidated cases involved an ongoing dispute over personal property awarded to Megan Golden in her 2012 divorce from Todd Guion. Golden appealed the district court’s order that: (1) rejected her request for a rehearing on a 2012 denial of her motion to find Guion in contempt of court; (2) denied her motion to vacate a February 2015 order following contempt hearings; and (3) granted Guion’s request for sanctions under W.R.C.P. 11. After review, the Supreme Court dismissed two of the cases for lack of jurisdiction, and affirmed the sanctions case because Golden did not file not file timely notices of appeal. View "Golden v. Guion" on Justia Law