Summary 2007 WY 135

Summary of Decision issued August 23, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and 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 note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: In the Matter of the Guardianship of: FJO, AKA and LM, WRB and GB v. GS, MO, GA and RM

Citation: 2007 WY 135

Docket Number: C-07-1

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

Representing Appellants (Petitioners): DaNece Day of Lubnau & Bailey, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): MO (Father), Pro se.

Issues: Whether the trial court committed reversible error by prospectively applying holdings of a Supreme Court case which was issued while the instant matter was under advisement. Whether trial court abused its discretion by failing to find Father an unfit parent. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a guardianship for one child in a sibling group.
Facts/Discussion: Appellants are the maternal grandparents of the child at issue in this matter. Grandparents petitioned the district court to appoint them as guardians of the Child. Father objected.
Standard of Review: The Court stated it was difficult to articulate a standard of review for the issues presented. The Court noted that In re Guardianship of MEO collected and catalogued many of the most important Wyoming and Federal court decisions that apply to circumstances such as those presented here but that it did not announce a new rule to which the concept of retrospective or prospective application is pertinent.
None of the materials contained in the record suggested that Father was “unfit” but of even more fundamental importance, his “unfitness” was not clearly posed as an issue for the district court to decide. The Grandparents focused on the “best interests of the child” in their arguments. They stated that had they focused on “fitness” of Father, they would have been successful. MEO articulated the time-honored principle that a child with a living parent does not need a guardian unless that parent is demonstrably unfit.
Grandparents also contended that the district court erred in making them guardians of only two of the three children thereby offending the Court’s generally accepted rule that sibling groups not be separated. The Court noted their decision in Aragon v. Aragon stating they did not retreat from anything said there. They stated that the district court’s order does not implicate the separation of siblings as contemplated by that body of law.

Holding: The issue presented to the district court in this case was whether a guardianship was necessary for the Child. The district court determined it was not necessary. That decision was not challenged in the appeal. The provision of the district court’s order which denied Grandparents’ petition to be appointed the guardians of the Child was affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2k7nu4 .