Summary 2006 WY 49

Summary of Decision issued April 20, 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. Please 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

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

Case Name: In the Matter of the Adoption of: ADA and SSA, CJ v. SA

Citation: 2006 WY 49

Docket Number: C-05-12

Appeals from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): No appearance.

Date of Decision: April 20, 2006

Issue: Whether the court erred when it did not terminate the Respondent’s parental rights. Whether the court erred when it did not take judicial notice of the previous court’s findings.

Holding: The children’s mother and father divorced in 2001 and the divorce decree awarded custody of the children to mother and ordered father to pay support. Mother married stepfather in 2003 and he assumed responsibility for supporting the children. Father did not comply with the child support order and in 2004 stepfather filed a petition to adopt the children without Father’s consent.
The Court reviews the district court’s decision on a petition to adopt by applying the abuse of discretion standard. A petition for adoption without parental consent may be granted if the elements in Wyo. Stat. Ann § 1-22-110 are satisfied. The right to associate with one’s own children is a fundamental right protected by the Wyoming and United States Constitutions and is therefore strictly construed. The party requesting the adoption bears the burden of proving the existence of at least of one of the statutory factors by clear and convincing evidence. The Court focused on the willfulness element and not on the amount of support that father did or did not pay because the district court’s dispositive finding did not involve a mathematical calculation. The willfulness requirement must be satisfied in order to grant an adoption under either subsection (ix) or (iv). Stepfather argued that under the principle of res judicata, father was precluded from claiming his failure to pay was not willful because he had previously been found in contempt and incarcerated for failing to comply. The argument does not include legal analysis or citation to legal authority and the record does not include the contempt orders so the Court refused to consider whether father was precluded by the earlier contempt orders from arguing his conduct was not willful. In TLC, the Court stated that “incarceration, standing alone, does not provide the direct intent necessary to constitute willful failure to pay.” The focus must remain on intent and ability to pay. The determination of whether father’s failure to pay child support was willful involves disputed factual issues and was therefore within the district court’s province. The Court reviewed the record and found it was sufficient to support the district court’s ultimate conclusion that stepfather had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that father’s failure to pay was willful.

The Court affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/ok83b .