Summary 2006 WY 83

Summary of Decision issued July 17, 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: Shelhamer v. Shelhamer, n/k/a Altermatt

Citation: 2006 WY 83

Docket Number: 05-155

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable H. Hunter Patrick, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Georgia L. Antley and Luke Esch, Student Intern, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Sharon G. Altermatt, Pro se.

Date of Decision: July 17, 2006

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion in terminating child support in contravention of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-313(a)(iv) and/or Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-204(a)(iii). Whether the district court erred by omitting the presumptive child support amount in its order. Whether the district court abused its discretion by using improper reasons as deviation factors from presumptive child support.

Holding: The history of the instant case shows numerous modifications of the original decree. Mother filed her appeal late and did not comply with W.R.A.P. 7.06(b) so the Court did not hear or consider her contentions. Father sought review of the district court’s order awarding him primary custody of their 17 year-old son and child support from Mother at $50.00 per month. The change in custody was stipulated to by the parties. Additionally the order provided that Mother’s responsibility for support would cease as of August 31, 2005.
Standard of review: The standard of review in petitions to modify child support is based on the proposition that such review is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. The Court considers only the evidence in favor of the successful party, ignores the evidence of the unsuccessful party and grants to the successful party every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record.
Support beyond age 18: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-313 and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-204(a)(iii) apply. The Court reviewed the record, noting that the parties were previously able to resolve their differences by stipulation and that at the time of the original decree the parents were unaware of their son’s learning disability. The Court concluded that the parties’ original agreement that child support should terminate when child reached the age of 18 should govern. The district court chose to terminate the support obligation as of August 31, 2005. The termination date was erroneous but because the Court determined the error was de minimus, the Court affirmed.
Failure to state amount of presumptive support in decree: The Court reiterated the importance of the district court in making detailed findings in matters where the parties are appearing before it in child custody and/or support matters to ensure that the order contains all required findings. The Court decided that because the record contained a statement of the presumptive support level, the error was de minimus and therefore harmless.
Deviation from presumptive support level: The Court reviewed the specific findings of the district court including the age of the child, the value of services contributed by either parent, and Mother’s forgiveness of child support arrearages. The Court stated that although the proceedings in the case were no model for litigants or for district courts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in taking into account the facts and circumstances that it did or in making its decision to deviate from the presumptive support level. All errors were de minimus and harmless.
In conclusion, the Court stated that the trial court must forgo informality in favor of careful attention to the governing statutes and the standards that the legislature expects both parties and the courts to adhere to in such cases to prevent needless complications and delays.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/psh9m .