Summary 2006 WY 28

Summary of Decision issued March 15, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: In the Matter of TLJ, minor child: CLH v. MMJ

Citation: 2006 WY 28

Docket Number: C-05-7

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Tammy A. Burt of Harris Law Firm, PC, Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): E. Dean Stout, Evanston, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 15, 2006

Issue: Whether the district court erred as a matter of law when it determined that a “substantial and material change of circumstances” had not occurred. Whether the district court abused its discretion in the manner in which it determined there was no substantial and material change of circumstances.

Holding: Decisions pertaining to child custody are within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent procedural error or a clear abuse of discretion. Modification of a pre-existing custody order is controlled by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c). The Court has construed this provision to require a two-step approach to custody modification actions. The first step requires a showing that there has been a “material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question.” Unless the district court finds a material change in circumstances, it cannot proceed to the second step – determining whether a modification would be in the best interests of the child. A determination that circumstances have changed is governed by an evaluation of the current circumstances of the parties in relation to their circumstances at the time the prior custody order was entered. The district court found a change of circumstances for the better for both parties but that the change was not significant enough to constitute a material and substantial change to warrant modification. The Court reviewed the argument presented and found ample support for the district court’s decision.

The decree of the district court was affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion of the Court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/gyke5 .