Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting Mother's motion for default and making final a temporary child support order from 2018, holding that the district court erred.In this appeal, Father challenged a district court order granting Mother's motion for default and making final a 2018 temporary child support order, arguing, among other things, that the district court violated his right to due process by granting Motion's motion for default before the closing of his twenty-day response window under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Father timely filed his notice of appeal, and therefore, this Court had jurisdiction; (2) the district court violated Father's right to due process by granting Mother's motion before Father's opportunity to respond expired; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by making the 2018 temporary child support order the final order without obtaining sufficient financial information under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-308. View "Tucker v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order finding Mother in contempt and modifying the underlying divorce decree, holding that the district court's finding of contempt must be reversed.The parties' divorce decree granted joint custody of the parties' two children. Mother later filed a petition to modify custody, seeking sole legal and primary residential custody of the children. Father responded with his own petition to modify custody. Father also sought to hold Mother in contempt. The district court (1) found Mother in contempt for unreasonably withholding visitation, unreasonably denying Father's requests to travel with the children, and failing to return Father's medical records; and (2) found that modification of the decree was justified. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court abused its discretion when it determined that clear and convincing evidence supporting finding Mother in contempt of court because the decree was ambiguous; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the decree to clarify its travel and visitation provisions; and (3) Mother was not entitled to relief on her remaining claims of error. View "Evans v. Sharpe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court to change the permanency plan for the two minor children of Father and Mother from family reunification to adoption, holding that there was no error.After a hearing, the district court found that the Department of Family Services made reasonable efforts to reunify the family because neither parent made little to no progress and that it was in the best interests of the children to change the permanency plan. Both parents appealed in two separate appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed as to both parents, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when changing the permanency plan to adoption; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine that it was not in the children's best interest to return home to Mother. View "DS v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Father's petition to modify a child custody order after Mother moved to Tennessee with the parties' child, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it modified custody.The divorce decree between the parties awarded Mother primary physical custody of the parties' child, AFK. Later, Mother notified Father of her plans to move to Tennessee with AFK. Father filed a petition to modify custody, visitation, and support, alleging that the proposed move was a material change in circumstances. The district court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and concluded that custody and visitation should be modified. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Father's petition to modify custody. View "Kelly v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this dispute between the children and grandchildren of Martin and Gay Aimone regarding their inheritances and ownership interests in the family ranch, holding that the court erred in part.In one appeal, the Aimones' surviving children (Chris and Colleen) challenged the district court's reformation of Gay's trust to reflect her intention that her surviving children and grandchildren be beneficiaries under the trust. In the second appeal, four of the Aimones' grandchildren (the Aimones brothers) argued that the district court improperly rejected their claims that Chris and Colleen violated their fiduciary obligations as the manager of one of the Aimone entities and as trustee of the trust. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's ruling in the first appeal concerning the intention of the trust; but (2) reversed the ruling in the second appeal, holding that Chris breached her fiduciary duties to the Aimone entity and should be removed as manager and that Colleen breached her fiduciary duties to Gay's trust, but damages were not proven to a reasonable degree of certainty. View "Aimone v. Aimone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court changing the permanency plan for a minor child (Child) from reunification to adoption, holding that there was no error.In 2021, the State filed a petition against Mother alleging neglect of Child. The juvenile court removed Child from the home follow a hearing and placed Child into non-relative foster care. In 2022, the Department of Family Services (DFS) recommended that the juvenile court change the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. The juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing and then issued an order changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not err in excluding Child's maternal grandmother as a placement option; (2) the juvenile court did not err in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption and allowing DFS to cease further reunification efforts; and (3) Father was not materially prejudiced by his absence from a shelter care hearing. View "AG v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court accepted certification of a question from the district court regarding the authority of a court-appointed guardian and conservator of an incompetent adult ward to petition the district court for the ward's divorce and concluded that neither a guardian nor a conservator has the power under Wyoming law to pursue a divorce on behalf of a ward.Guardian/Conservator, who was appointed as guardian of Madonna Flory's person and conservator of her estate, filed a complaint for Ms. Flory's divorce from Rand Flory. The parties agreed that there was no controlling Wyoming precedent on the issue of whether a guardian or conservator could file for divorce on behalf of a ward, and the district court certified the question to the Supreme Court. In response the Supreme Court answered that Wyoming law does not permit a a guardian or conservator to move for and prosecute a divorce action on behalf of the ward. View "Flory v. Flory" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Mother's request for a jury trial in this termination of parental rights case, holding that the district court exercised sound judgment under the circumstances.The Department of Family Services brought an action to terminate Mother's parental rights to her son. Mother failed to make a timely demand for a jury trial pursuant to Wyo. R. Crim. P. 38 (Rule 38) and later requested that the district court grant a jury trial under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 39(b). The district court denied Mother's request and subsequently terminated her parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the order denying Mother's Rule 39 motion was not a final appealable order; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's request for a jury trial. View "Gipson v. State, ex rel. Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Wife's motion for relief filed under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 60(a) from a divorce decree entered in 2003, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law in denying Rule 60(a) motion.At issue was the provision in the parties' stipulated decree of divorce that granted Wife fifty percent of the marital portion of Husband's disposable retired pay under his military retirement plan and provided a formula to calculate the marital portion based on Husband's months of service. In her Rule 60(a) motion, Wife argued that the formula's use of the word "months" rather than the term "reserve points" prevented her from collecting her share of Husband's military retired pay. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the district court's denial of Wife's motion for relief, holding that the decree's use of "months" instead of "reserve points" was a clerical mistake requiring correction. View "Stone v. Stone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the petition brought by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate the parental rights of Mother to her child, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her claims of error.After a hearing, the district court held that the Department of Family Services (DFS) had presented clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights to her child should be terminated under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v). The court further held that termination would be in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the district court's holding that DFS made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate and reunify Mother and her child under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 14-2-309(a)(iii). View "Alcorn v. State ex rel. Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law