Summary 2007 WY 145

Summary of Decision issued September 17, 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: Bingham v. Bingham

Citation: 2007 WY 145

Docket Number: S-07-0028

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Devon O’Connell Coleman of Pence and MacMillan LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that Mother should have care, control, and custody of the parties’ minor child. Whether the court abused its discretion in not ruling on perjury by Mother under oath on the stand and by Mother not listing her bank accounts and Jeep Liberty vehicle on her pretrial statement. Whether it is proper for the Court to dismiss Father’s appeal for failure to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure by failing to designate any portion of the record. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding custody of the parties’ minor to Mother.

Facts/Discussion: Father appeals the district court’s order awarding Mother custody of the child born during their marriage, claiming an abuse of discretion.
Designation of Record: Father did not designate a record when he filed his brief however, later he filed a designation of records one day after Mother filed hers. Because Father ultimately designated a record the Court declined Mother’s invitation to dismiss the appeal.
Standard of Review: The Court stated their standard of review in child custody cases is well established. See, Scherer v. Scherer; Triggs v. Triggs; Fink v. Fink; Cranston v. Cranston; and Jones v. Jones.
Child Custody: Father asserted the district court improperly failed to consider the greater stability his more regular work hours would afford the child. Establishing that a court ignored a material factor requires more than a mere showing that the court did not mention the factor in its decision. The Court has not held that the regularity of work schedules is determinative in custody matters.
The Court was not persuaded by Father’s claim that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring the evidence of Mother’s perjury. Because there was evidence to support its decision, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding for Mother while also acknowledging some inconsistencies in her testimony.
The record did not support Father’s contention that the district court abused its discretion because it did not consider the well being of the child.
Findings contrary to the evidence cannot be sustained and constitute an abuse of discretion. The task of assessing the evidence belongs to the district court and given the testimony and the journal, the record contained adequate evidence to support the district court’s conclusion.
The district court set out the factors it considered in concluding that while either parent would provide a good home, Mother should be primary caregiver because of her greater willingness to facilitate a cooperative parenting relationship.

Holding: The district court provided a more than adequate articulation of its reasoning and neither ignored material factors deserving significant weight nor made findings contrary to the evidence. The Court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Mother custody of the child.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/33zojr .