Summary 2007 WY 179

Summary of Decision issued November 9, 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: Eickbush v. Eickbush

Citation: 2007 WY 179

Docket Number: S-07-0030

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge

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

Representing Appellee (Defendant): No appearance.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Mother’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and ordering shared custody.

Facts/Discussion: Father appealed from the district court’s order of shared custody.
Standard of Review: Custody, visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to the sound discretion of the district court. The welfare and needs of the children are to be given paramount consideration.
Even when parties agree on the issue of custody it is well settled that the district court is not bound to accept a stipulation of the parties and that the court’s major consideration in determining custody of minor children is the welfare of those children. The district court must consider the interest of the children at the time of the hearing, not at the time the parties separated or some other time prior to the hearing. The district court’s order contained no specific findings concerning the factors it considered in deciding to award shared custody. Therefore, the hearing transcript provided the only record evidence of the district court’s reasons for awarding shared custody. The record indicated that the district court did not have sufficient evidence to allow it to adequately address the disputed question of custody. After hearing testimony, the district court stated it was unable to discern from the evidence that had been presented that shared custody was not in the best interest of the children. In performing a best interests analysis, the district court must satisfy itself that it is possessed of sufficient facts to support its determination. The district court failed to ensure that the children’s best interests were protected when it ordered shared custody without having all the facts necessary, accurately and fully to evaluate the impact that shared custody might have on the children.

Holding: The conclusion of the district court was unsupported in the record and inconsistent with the evidence presented. The district court abused its discretion by ordering shared custody without having sufficient facts to evaluate whether that form of custody was in the children’s best interests.

Reversed and remanded.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2jyx3x .