Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Father's petition to modify a child custody order granting Mother primary custody of the parties' daughter (Child), holding that there was no abuse of discretion during the proceedings below.The original child custody order granted Mother primary custody of Child. Father later petitioned the court to modify the order, claiming that the original order had proved unworkable due to ambiguity in its terms. After a trial, the district court concluded that a material change of circumstances had occurred since the original order and that it was in Child's best interests for the parties to have shared custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that there had been a material change of circumstances affecting Child's welfare since the original custody and visitation order and that Child's best interests would be served by granting the parties shared custody. View "Gardels v. Bowling" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion its division of the parties' marital property.On appeal, Wife challenged the district court's division of marital property, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in its calculation of the equalization payment due to Wife from Husband. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Wife failed to demonstrate clear grounds for altering the property distribution; and (2) the court's disposition of the marital estate was neither so unfair nor so inequitable that it was unreasonable. View "D'Anzi v. D'Anzi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting Father's petition to modify the parties' divorce decree by awarding Father primary physical custody of the children and restricting Mother's visitation with the children, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.On appeal, Mother argued, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by suspending her right to overnight visitation with the children for part of the time the modification action was pending. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in awarding primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties' two children to Father; and (2) Mother was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "Baer v. Baer" on Justia Law

In this divorce action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Husband's motions to continue the bench trial and the court's division of marital property, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.After seventeen years of marriage, the parties in this case divorced. Husband appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion and violated his constitutional due process in denying his motions to continue the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not deny Husband due process by denying Husband's motions to continue; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in its division of marital property and debts. View "Engebretsen v. Engebretsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction over a child custody dispute to Texas pursuant to Wyo. Stat. 20-5-306, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and relinquished jurisdiction.Less than a week after Child's birth, Mother filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, and child support. Thereafter, Mother moved to Texas. The district court then entered an order establishing Father's paternity of Child and awarding Mother primary custody. Four years after Mother and Child moved, Mother petitioned a Texas district court to modify visitation and compel Father's participation in parenting facilitation. The Texas court contacted the Wyoming court to discuss the matter of jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Wyoming court determined Wyoming was an inconvenient forum and entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction to Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify the child custody order after finding Wyoming was an inconvenient forum; and (2) did not violate Father's due process rights by not requiring the parties to file written pleadings in Wyoming. View "Ruiz v. Fribourg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the petition filed by the Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) to terminate Father's parental rights, holding that Father was not entitled to relief on his claims of error on appeal.On appeal, Father argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the termination proceedings and that the district court erred in denying his motion to set aside the entry of default. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) because Wyo. Stat. 14-2-318(a) does not create a mandatory right to counsel, it does not create a statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in termination of parental rights cases; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father's motions to set aside the entry of default. View "Roberts v. State, Dep't of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court allowing Wife trial counsel to withdraw from representation several weeks prior to a divorce bench trial, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted counsel's motion to withdraw without conditioning the withdrawal upon the substitution of other counsel by written appearance.On appeal, Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion under the circumstances because no "extraordinary circumstances" were cited, as required under Rule 102(c) of the Wyoming Uniform Rules for District Courts to allow her trial counsel to withdraw without first obtaining substitute counsel. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the district court could reasonably conclude extraordinary circumstances existed to allow Wife's counsel to withdraw without requiring substitution of counsel. View "McGill v. McGill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan for Mother and her two youngest children from family reunification to adoption, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Mother argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that the Department of Family Services (DFS) made reasonable but ultimately unsuccessful efforts at reunification and that the permanency plan for the children should be changed to adoption. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the record adequately supported the court's determination that DFS met its burden to prove its efforts at reunifying Mother with her two children were reasonable but unsuccessful. View "NP v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court awarding Mother primary physical custody of the parties' daughter, CP, holding that the district court's findings were sufficient to support the court's order awarding Mother primary physical custody of CP.In 2017, Father filed his petition under Wyo. R. Crim. P. 52(a) to establish custody, visitation, and child support. In 2020, the district court entered an order requiring the parties to share physical custody of TP. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the district court's Rule 52(a) findings were insufficient under the circumstances. On remand, the district court awarded Mother primary physical custody of TP. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's order made findings of fact sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 52(a). View "Pettengill v. Castellow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting the visitation action brought by Grandparents against Parents seeking visitation with their grandchildren, holding that the district court violated Parents' fundamental constitutional right to raise their children as they see fit.Grandparents brought this action under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-7-101(a) after a conflict with Parents. The district court judgment in favor of Grandparents and awarded them the right to open and unmonitored contact with the children and monthly and summer visitation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when it ordered grandparent visitation, the district court did not adequately protect Parents' fundamental constitutional right to rear their children as they see fit. View "Bowman v. Study" on Justia Law