Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father, who never married, were the parents of two minor children. After the parties separated, the parties filed a stipulated order establishing custody and visitation, which was entered by the district court. The district court later entered a stipulated order for modification of child support, which required Father to pay child support in an amount based on the parties’ agreement that they were exercising shared custody. Father subsequently filed a petition to modify support, claiming a material change in circumstances. Mother requested that the district court order Father to pay child support in accordance with the presumptive child support guidelines that apply when one parent, i.e., Mother, has primary physical custody. The district court found that the existing custody arrangement was, in fact, not shared as the previous stipulated orders indicated and that Mother actually had primary custody based on the number of nights that the parties had the children overnight per year. The court then found a downward deviation was warranted under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-307(b) and reduced Father’s child support obligation from the presumptive amount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deviating downward from the primary custody presumptive support amount. View "Dellit v. Tracy" on Justia Law

In 2014, Appellant filed a Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion seeking to set aside a 1999 default judgment granting Appellee a divorce. In support of her motion, Appellant alleged that the default judgment was void because the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the default judgment against her. The circuit court denied the motion, finding that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in rejecting Appellant’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion based solely on Appellant’s delay in filing the motion, as Rule 60(b)’s time limitations do not generally apply to Rule 60(b)(4) motions to set aside a judgment as void; but (2) none of the defects Appellant alleged in the district court’s default judgment rendered the judgment void for lack of jurisdiction. View "Linch v. Linch" on Justia Law

Seventy-six-year-old William suffered from a lifelong mental disability. William’s brother Robert and sister Jeanne were the sole trustees of a trust established by William’s mother to support William. Because Williams had fallen prey to financial scammers, Robert and Jeanne took steps to prevent William from trust money. Thereafter, Robert petitioned for appointment as William’s guardian, and Jeanne cross-petitioned seeking to be appointed as William’s guardian and conservator. The district court dismissed Robert’s petition as a sanction for his failure to appear at a pretrial conference and temporarily appointed Jeanne as William’s guardian and conservator. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly dismissed Robert’s guardianship petition; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in disposing of Robert’s motions to submit the case to mediation and to quash the proposed order dismissing Robert’s petition; and (3) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Robert’s petition to disqualify the presiding judge. View "In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Bratton" on Justia Law

Jessica Hofhine filed for divorce from Mike Hofhine. The parties entered into a property settlement stipulation agreement that was incorporated into the decree of divorce entered by the district court. The next year, Jessica filed a “Motion for Enforcement of Judgment and Decree of Divorce,” claiming that she was entitled to an “income equalization” payment under the terms of the parties' divorce decree. The district court denied the motion on the basis that Jessica did not ask the court for compensation or equalization before the decree of divorce was entered. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in its interpretation and application of the legal documents governing the property distribution between Jessica and Mike when it concluded that Jessica was not entitled to equalization of income under the parties’ divorce decree; (2) did not violate Jessica’s due process rights by refusing to permit any party or witness testimony at the hearing on Jessica’s motion; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to Mike. View "Hofhine v. Hofhine" on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the parents of AD, born in 2009. In 2011, Father filed a complaint for child custody seeking primary physical custody of AD. After a trial, the district court awarded Father primary physical custody of AD, granted Mother liberal visitation with AD, and ordered Mother to pay $289 per month in child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the visitation schedule ordered by the district court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its order on child support; and (3) the district court’s limitation of Father’s cross-examination did not result in any deprivation of Father’s right to due process. View "Davidson v. Carrillo" on Justia Law

In 2012, Father filed a motion for order to show cause why Mother should not be held in contempt for refusing to comply with the visitation and communication provisions of the parties’ 2004 decree regarding custody of the parties’ two daughters. After a hearing, the district court found Mother in contempt of court and sanctioned her by (1) expanding Father’s visitation, (2) requiring Mother to pay for the children’s plane tickets for a winter break and spring break, (3) requiring Mother to post a bond if she did not fulfill the remedial portions of the order regarding visitation, and (4) directing Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees and the guardian ad litem fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mother in indirect civil contempt of court; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the remedial sanctions; and (3) Father was not entitled to sanctions against Mother and her appellate counsel. View "Shindell v. Shindell" on Justia Law

Father filed for divorce from Mother in 2011. After a trial, the trial court entered a divorce decree granting Mother physical custody of the children and awarding visitation to Father, ordering Father to pay child support, dividing the marital property, and awarding alimony to Mother. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in all respects, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in (1) the division of property between the parties; (2) awarding alimony to Mother; (3) its calculation of child support; and (4) determining the custody and visitation of the children. View "Stevens v. Stevens" on Justia Law

After the Department of Family Services (DFS) received reports regarding the care Children were receiving from Mother and Stepfather, the State filed a neglect petition. DFS’s efforts to reunify Children with Mother failed. The juvenile court subsequently ordered Children to remain in the custody of Father and that DFS move to terminate the parental rights of Mother to Children. DFS appealed, claiming it could not move to terminate Mother’s parental rights because it did not have custody of Children and therefore was not an “authorized agency” that may file a petition to terminate one’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DFS was an “authorized agency” under the relevant statute regardless of whether it had physical and/or legal custody of Children. View "In re LB" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced pursuant to a decree that awarded the parties joint custody of their two children with each parent allowed to have the children fifty percent of the time. Mother later sought to modify the decree. The district court modified the custody, visitation, and child support provisions of the decree, awarding each parent primary custody of one child and ordering Father to reimburse Mother for certain medical costs and other expenses. Father appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion by declining to determine the amount Father owed Mother to reimburse her for medical expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly declined to determine what amount, if any, Father owed Mother for medical expenses; and (2) therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to enter an order for a specific amount. View "Carbaugh v. Nichols" on Justia Law

When Mother and Father divorced, Mother was awarded primary custody of the parties’ child. Father later field a petition for modification of custody and time-sharing. The district court found there had been a substantial change of circumstances and that it was in the child’s best interest for Father to be awarded custody. Mother appealed, claiming (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction over Father’s petition for modification of custody due to Father’s failure to comply with the statutory pleading requirements; (2) her due process right was violated when default was improperly entered against her; and (3) the district court abused its discretion in entering a child support order due to its failure to comply with statutory child support requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s petition; (2) Mother was given the process she was due; and (3) the district court correctly ruled on the child support issue. View "Brush v. Davis" on Justia Law