Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court changing the permanency plan for Mother and her three children from family reunification to termination of parental rights and adoption, holding that the juvenile court abused its discretion.On appeal, Mother argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion in determining that the Wyoming Department of Family Services had made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with her children. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the record demonstrated that the Department failed in its burden to show that it provided Mother appropriate services or genuine help to achieve reunification with her children. View "In re MA" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court changing the permanency plan for Mother and Father's children, SMD and SND, from reunification to adoption, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the juvenile court (1) did not abuse its discretion when it found that it was in the children's best interests to change the permanency plan to adoption instead of guardianship; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it determined there was no need for a concurrent plan of reunification upon determining that reunification efforts could cease. View "In re Interest of SMD" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Father's petition to modify child custody, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Father argued that the district court abused its discretion when it (1) found a material change in circumstances had occurred warranting reconsideration of child custody but then declined to modify the custody arrangement, and (2) excluded the testimony of one of Father's witnesses at trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to modify the custody arrangement; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of Father's witnesses at trial. View "Lackey v. Lackey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Father sole custody of the parties' daughter and denying Mother's request to end supervised visitation, holding that there was no error.The court in this case initially decided that it was in the child's best interests for Father to have physical custody of the child and the parents to share joint custody. Upon Father's motion, the court subsequently awarded Father sole legal and physical custody of the child, subject to Mother's supervised visitation. Father later filed a petition seeking to move Mother's visitation to another city. Mother counterclaimed, requesting her visitation no longer be supervised. The court ultimately moved Mother's visitation with the child and ordered that Mother's visitation remain supervised. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Mother's constitutional right to familial association by denying Mother's request to end supervised visitation. View "Taulo-Millar v. Hognason" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding David Cook custody of the two minor children he shared with Charmaine Parker, holding that the district court did not err.When Cook and Parker divorced, Parker received custody of the parties' two children. The children were later taken into protective custody and then placed with Cook when Parker was accused of assaulting the children's older half-sibling. Cook filed a civil case asking the district court to modify the original custody order to award him custody of the children. The district court entered judgment in favor of Cook. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Cook's motion to strike five of Parker's expert witnesses and denied Parker's request to present surrebuttal testimony. View "Parker v. Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part two district court orders in this divorce case - a custody order and a visitation order, holding that the district court abused its discretion in requiring Father to submit to regular alcohol testing during the transition period to joint custody.On appeal, Father argued that the district court erred in awarding primary custody to Mother during the transition period, in implementing a fifteen-month transition plan, and requiring him to submit to regular alcohol testing during the transition. The Supreme Court reversed the alcohol testing requirement and otherwise affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in awarding primary custody to Mother; (2) abused its discretion in requiring Father to film himself taking a home breath test at least once a week and undergo random tests for nearly one year; and (3) did not commit reversible error when it delayed seven months after the final hearing before entering its custody and visitation orders. View "Mecartney v. Mecartney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the child custody modification order entered by the district court awarding Father primary physical custody of the parties' two children, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.When the parties divorced, a stipulated divorce decree awarded them joint legal, physical, and residential custody of their two minor children. The court later granted Mother's motion to modify, concluding that it was in the children's best interests for Mother to have primary residential custody. Father subsequently filed the custody modification issue at issue, arguing that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the children's best interests that he be awarded primary residential custody. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the children's best interests to award primary physical custody to Father. View "Gutierrez v. Bradley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dividing marital property between Wife and Husband upon granting Husband a divorce, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the marital property as it did.On appeal, Wife argued that the district court abused its discretion by arbitrarily awarding her an equalization payment of $200,000 and requested that the Court either modify the judgment to $334,789 or remand for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the property in a division it considered fair and equitable and after applying the factors set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-114. View "Innes v. Innes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Kevin and Darcy Guilles' co-guardianship of DEP, the child of Diona Palu, holding that the Guilles failed to provide an adequate record to review the issues raised on appeal.On appeal, the Guilles asserted that the district court deprived them of due process by not providing them notice that it intended to address Palu's motion to terminate the guardianship at a scheduled hearing and that the court's parental fitness finding was contrary to the great weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record on appeal was inadequate to review either the Guilles' due process claim or the district court's parental fitness finding. View "In re Guardianship of DEP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court holding Mother in contempt for denying Father visitation with their child during summer and for the Thanksgiving holiday, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court erred in determining that she willfully violated the divorce decree. Specifically, Mother argued that she could not have willfully violated the decree because it was no clear, specific, and unambiguous about summer visitation or about how to conduct holiday visitation during a global pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found Mother in contempt for denying Father summer and Thanksgiving visitation. View "Burrow v. Sieler" on Justia Law