Summary 2007 WY 61

Summary of Decision issued April 13, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter 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.]

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

Case Name: Wild v. Adrian

Citation: 2007 WY 61

Docket Number: 06-183

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellants (Petitioners): Sean W. Scoggin of Tiedeken & Scoggin, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Raymond D. Macchia and Julianna Hernandez of Macchia & Assoc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court properly denied the Wilds’ petition to intervene in the divorce proceeding.

Facts/Discussion: Bryan and Karen Adrian were divorced in 2002. The district court awarded the parties joint legal custody and Mr. Adrian primary physical custody of their two children. The children lived with their father until 2005 when, due to his military service assignment, he placed them in the custody of Shannon and Vincent Wild. After Mr. Adrian died in 2006, the Wilds sought to intervene in the divorce proceeding to have the custody order modified to award them custody of the children. Alternatively, they sought appointment as guardians of the children.
Standard of Review: The decision whether to grant or deny a motion to intervene as of right involves mixed questions of law and fact. The Court reviews questions of law de novo and defers to the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.
The Right to Intervene: The Wilds alleged that they had standing to request modification of the custody order pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-203(a) because at the time they had filed their petition they had acted as parents for the children and the children had been in their physical custody for at least the last six months. On appeal, they claimed they were entitled to intervene pursuant to W.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) or (b)(2). The interest claimed by an applicant seeking to intervene as of right must be a significant protectable interest. A contingent interest will not suffice. The Court concluded they did not have such an interest and the district court properly denied their motion to intervene.
The Court referred to their decision in MBB v. ERW where they held that only those persons specifically granted standing by statute could petition the court to modify a child custody order. Their holding in MBB applied in the instant case where non-parents sought to obtain custody of children.
The Wild’s sought permissive intervention which faced the same difficulties as their claim for intervention. Under Wyoming law, a non-parent does not have standing to request modification of a custody order.
Alternatively, the Wilds sought to be appointed as guardians of the Adrian children. The Court found no statutory authority or judicial authority in Wyoming allowing a non-parent to intervene in a divorce proceeding for the purpose of being appointed as guardian for the children from the marriage.
The Wilds also claimed that it was error for the district court to deny their petition without a hearing. The Court’s research indicated a court may deny a request for an evidentiary hearing when it is clear from the record that the petitioner is not entitled to intervene.

Holding: The Court concluded it was clear from the record that the Wilds were not entitled to intervene in the Adrian divorce proceeding. Therefore the district court did not err in denying the Wilds’ petition to intervene without a hearing.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2zdsrs .