Summary 2010 WY 59

Summary of Decision issued May 7, 2010

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

Case Name: Zupan v. Zupan

Citation: 2010 WY 59

Docket Number: S-09-0127

Appeal from the District Court of Hot Springs County, the Honorable Dan Spangler, Judge.

Representing Mother: Wendy Sweeny, Worland, Wyoming.

Representing Father: Michael S. Messenger and Bobbi Overfield, Messenger & Jurovich, PC, Thermopolis, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Mother appealed the post-divorce order in which the district court found that with slight changes, the best interests of the parties’ children were being served by the existing shared custody and visitation plan; that no grounds to modify the prior custody arrangement existed; and that Father was not in contempt for violating the Decree.

The shared custody arrangement: Wyoming statute specifically allows the district court to arrange a shared custody plan which it finds to be in the best interests of the children. Mother fundamentally disagreed with the district court’s determination to continue with the custody arrangement that had been in place for the minor children for the previous five years subject to slight modification. A review of the district court’s findings revealed that all relevant factors were thoughtfully analyzed and carefully weighed in discerning the best interests of the children.
Father’s relationships with is other children and grandchildren: Mother pointed to Father’s past aggressiveness with his daughter from a prior relationship and his overall inability to deal with teenagers based on his relationships with his other children. The record showed that the trial court accepted the testimony on the issue presented. The district court’s findings lead to the conclusion that the evidence was obviously considered and given appropriate weight.
Travel or relocation restriction: Mother sought to have the residency restriction removed; the district court ordered it be lifted and that any future issues be addressed through future modification proceedings. As stated in Harshberger, relocation, by itself, cannot be a substantial and material change in circumstances sufficient to justify reopening a custody order. But, the precedent does not preclude the district court from considering the effects of relocation on the children so long as there is some other circumstance that would serve as a substantial and material change even in the absence of relocation.
Denial of Mother’s contempt petition: The record contained ample support for the findings of the trial court that Mother did not meet her burden of proof in showing that Father was in contempt for disobeying the Decree; Father had not repeatedly refused to allow Mother to recover lost time with the children and each party had allowed the other extra time in accordance with the best interests of the children; Father had not forbidden school personnel from communicating with Mother; neither party had willfully denied custodial nor visitation rights of the other; Father participated in mediation in good faith; and there had not been willful violations of court orders by either party.

Conclusion: The Court declined to reweigh the testimony and evidence adduced at trial because Mother had not articulated the existence of some serious procedural error, a violation of a principle of law, or a clear and grave abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

D.J. Tyler delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/267g98w .

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]