Summary 2007 WY 17

Summary of Decision issued January 30, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was 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.]

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

Case Name: Davis f/k/a/ Gill v. Gill

Citation: 2007 WY 17

Docket Number: 06-88

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Lisa M. Barrett of Buchhammer & Kehl, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Matthew Gill, pro se.

Issue: Whether the district court had jurisdiction to modify a Guam court’s child custody, support, and visitation decree.
Facts/Discussion: Mother and Father obtained a divorce in Guam where the parties were awarded joint custody of their two minor children with physical custody alternating annually between Mother and Father. Mother appeals an order of the district court finding it had no jurisdiction to modify a custody decree entered by the superior court of Guam on October 28, 2004.
Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law the Court reviews de novo. The Court has stated the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) constitutes federal preemption of custody matter. Based on the plain language of the PKPA, (1) both Wyoming and Guam are “states” within the meaning of the act; (2) before modifying another state’s custody determination under the PKPA, the modifying state must have subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) the original decree state must either decline or be divested of jurisdiction.
The Court relied on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-104 read in conjunction with § 20-5-115 to reach the conclusion that Wyoming can modify a child custody decree of another jurisdiction if (1) the district court had home state or best interest jurisdiction, and (2) Guam was no longer able to exercise the same jurisdiction.
Holding: The Court previously recognized the PKPA changed the UCCJA to create a decree state preference in modification matters. The decree state preference is not absolute, however the Court agreed with the district court that the children had sufficient contacts with Guam to allow continuing jurisdiction in its courts, absent relinquishment of jurisdiction by those courts. The Guam court evidenced its intent to retain jurisdiction over its decree by issuing an order to show cause on September 7, 2005, nearly four months after Mother filed her motion to modify the original decree. It was clear the district court in the instant case did not err when it found it did not have jurisdiction to modify the Guam custody decree.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yq7644 .