Summary 2007 WY 73

Summary of Decision issued May 3, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation 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: FML v. TW

Citation: 2007 WY 73

Docket Number: C-06-7

Appeal from the District Court of Washakie County, the Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondent): DaNece Day of Lubnau, Bailey & Dumbrill, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Thomas W. Harrington of Davis & Harrington, PC, Worland, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to establish visitation that includes details necessary to promote understanding and compliance as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by placing more weight on the Mother’s violation of the existing order than other factor’s affecting the best interests of the child as set forth by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-101(a).

Facts/Discussion: Mother sought review of an order of the district court which granted Father’s Motion to Modify Custody.
Appealable Order: The Court decided on its own motion to consider whether the order form which the appeal was taken was appealable. The Court was satisfied the instant case involved a special proceeding as contemplated by W.R.A.P. 1.05.
Abuse of District Court’s Discretion: Modification of custody is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204. The Court did not have a properly authenticated transcript before it which restricted their review to those assertions of error not requiring inspection of the transcript. Therefore the regularity of the trial court was presumed. The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to modify custody.
Visitation Detail and Child Support: The district court had not yet established a detailed visitation plan. The Court remanded the case to the district court to address the task of establishing a visitation plan and possibly establishing support.

Holding: The Court determined the order form from which the appeal was taken was an appealable order. The Court did not have a properly authenticated transcript before them so the regularity of the trial court’s judgment was presumed. The district court had not yet established a detailed visitation plan which was needed in the case. Support had not yet been established either. The Court ordered that portion of the case remanded.

The order modifying custody was affirmed. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

J. Hill delivered the decision.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/279eaz .