Summary 2009 WY 51

Summary of Decision issued April 9, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Inman, Jr., v. Williams, f/k/a Inman

Citation: 2009 WY 51

Docket Number: S-08-0113

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge.

Representing Appellant Inman, Jr.: John D. Bowers and Joshua T. Smith of Bowers Law Firm, PC, Afton, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Williams: William L. Combs of Combs Law Office, LLC, Evanston, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Father appealed from a district court order which settled several matters that were in dispute between Father and Mother. The Court reviewed this matter previously in Inman I. Although two years have passed, the problems between the parties with respect to child visitation still have not been fully resolved. The instant proceedings were initiated by Father’s petition to relocate along with the children to South Carolina.

The Court noted an important distinction between the circumstances of the appeal in Inman I and those in the instant case. In the instant case, the district court order established a concrete visitation schedule and delayed but did not deny Father’s ability to relocate to South Carolina. Two years have passed with the parties no closer to resolution of their disputes. The Court noted that they did not intend to create a precedent which suggested that by merely being obdurate for a long enough period of time, a party may elevate an “insubstantial right” to a “substantial” one. It appears that Father side-stepped his obligations as imposed by the district court and his decision to move to South Carolina would further frustrate Mother’s rights to visitation. Although he has flaunted court orders, he cannot be denied his constitutional right to relocate. The Court concluded that the order from which the appeal was taken was an appealable final order as contemplated by W.R.A.P. 1.05.
The Court’s focus was on the reinstatement of Mother’s longstanding, but unenforced rights to visitation and a modification of those rights so as to ensure and facilitate her rights in light of Father’s desire to relocate. Father contended the district court erred in ordering him to post a $50,000.00 bond if he chose to move. The Court noted the record of Father’s behavior warranted the imposition of the bond. Father contended the district court violated his fundamental rights by negating his selection of a counselor for the children. The argument was not supported by the record or by cogent argument or pertinent authority. Father contended that the district court erred when it ordered the potential re-opening of Mother’s petition to modify custody in the event Father continued to flaunt the orders of the court. The Court viewed the district court’s orders in this instance as a warning to Father. Father contended that the district court abused its discretion in requiring him to pay Mother a per diem when visiting the children. The Court stated it was inclined to embrace a principle established in Nebraska that there is no immutable standard for the allocation of travel expenses for the purpose of visitation; instead the determination of reasonableness is made on a case-by-case basis. Father contended the district court erred in permitting the GAL to indirectly testify at a hearing. Because the GAL’s participation in this case was unusually comprehensive, her participation in the proceedings did not undermine the validity of the court’s order. The Court reviewed the record in consideration of the best interests of the children with respect to visitation and concluded the determination was supported by the record. Father contended the district court erred in not requiring Mother to pay child support. The parties previously stipulated that neither would pay the other support and that stipulation remained in full force and effect. The Court declined to impose sanctions as requested by Mother because it determined that the order from which the appeal was taken was an appealable order.

Conclusion: None of the provisions of the district court’s order constituted an abuse of discretion nor were any of its provisions invalid as a matter of the law.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/cgfat7 .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]