Summary 2007 WY 147

Summary of Decision issued September 18, 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: Hayzlett v. Hayzlett

Citation: 2007 WY 147

Docket Number: S-07-0040

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Richard Allen Erb, Jr., Richard A. Erb, Jr., PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it modified the divorce decree and awarded custody of the minor children to Father.

Facts/Discussion: Mother challenged the district court’s order modifying custody.
Standard of Review: The Court reviews a trial court’s custody decision for abuse of discretion. If the record includes sufficient evidence, the Court upholds the trial court’s decision.
The Court noted that the custody hearing relating to the order from which Mother appealed was not reported. It was settled pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03 after the parties filed their appellate briefs.
Mother and Father were married in 1994. Father adopted Mother’s two children, a son RH and a daughter SH. The couple produced two more daughters, AH and DH. The parties divorced in 1997 with Mother being awarded custody of all four children. Shortly after the divorce, the parties agreed that RH would live with Father and he has continued to do so since that time.
Modification of child custody is a two step process involving a showing of a material change in circumstances since entry of the order in question and secondly the court determines whether a modification will be in the best interests of the children. No single factor is determinative. The facts support the district court’s determination there was a material change in circumstances. The same facts that support a material change are also factors supporting that the children’s best interests are served by being in Father’s custody. The record also contained evidence favorable to Mother. The Court noted that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions about which parent’s custody would be in the best interest of the children as is true in most cases.

Holding: The record included sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision, so the Court could find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award of custody to Father. The Court declined to impose sanctions on Mother as requested by Father because she did not cite the record in her brief and her Notice of Appeal lacked an appendix as required under W.R.A.P. 2.07(b). The Court stated the deficiencies were not jurisdictional and did not preclude meaningful review.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2sm2sc .