Summary 2007 WY 154

Summary of Decision issued September 25, 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: Symington v. Symington

Citation: 2007 WY 154

Docket Number: S-07-0044

Appeal from the District Court of Sweetwater County, the Honorable Nena R. James, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Robert J. O’Neil, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Mark W. Gifford, Casper, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the trial court properly declined to exercise further child custody jurisdiction.

Facts/Discussion: Father appeals the district court’s order declining jurisdiction of a child custody dispute pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307 on the basis that Idaho provided a more appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute.
Standard of Review: In child custody proceedings, the determination of whether to exercise jurisdiction or to defer to the courts of another state is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
The district court made its decision pursuant to the inconvenient forum provision of the Wyoming UCCJEA. The evidence established that the children had lived in Idaho for nearly two years, during which time they had attended Idaho schools and seen a counselor there. It reflected that the GAL had often been limited to telephone conversations with the children because of the distance involved. Father lived in Gillette so that the district court in Sweetwater County was no longer a convenient forum for either party.
The decision to decline jurisdiction is not based on fault. Rather it is a determination of which forum is more appropriate.

Holding: There was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision to defer to the jurisdiction of the Idaho court. The Court noted that by the time Mother filed her most recent motion, the one now under review, the children had lived in Idaho longer, more of their school and counseling records had accumulated there, and the majority of witnesses with pertinent information were there. Combining these factors with the need to appoint another GAL, the Court was unable to find any abuse of discretion by the district court in declining jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3coeav .