Summary 2014 WY 51

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion of the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: KIMBERLY SHINDELL v. ROGER SHINDELL

Docket Number: S-13-0117

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, the Honorable Marvin L. Tyler, Judge

Representing Appellant: Robert E. Schroth, Sr., Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Roger Shindell, pro se.

Guardian ad Litem: Jean A. Day, Jackson, Wyoming. No appearance.

Date of Decision: April 22, 2014

Facts: Kimberly Shindell (Mother) appeals from the district court’s order finding her in civil contempt of court for refusing to comply with the district court’s orders regarding Roger Shindell’s (Father) rights to visitation and communication with their two daughters. She challenges the district court’s finding of contempt and the remedies it imposed.

Issues: Mother presents the following issues on appeal:

1. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN FINDING APPELLANT/MOTHER IN INDIRECT CIVIL CONTEMPT?

2. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, COMMIT PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW BY ORDERING APPELLANT/MOTHER TO PAY FOR ALL TRAVEL-RELATED COSTS FOR HER CHILDREN TO VISIT APPELLEE/FATHER?

3. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, COMMIT PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW BY ORDERING APPELLANT/MOTHER TO POST A $10,000.00 BOND IN THE EVENT SHE INTERFERES WITH HER CHILDREN VISITING APPELLEE/FATHER?

4. DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION, COMMIT PROCEDURAL ERROR, AND VIOLATE A PRINCIPLE OF LAW BY ORDERING APPELLANT/MOTHER TO PAY APPELLEE/FATHER’S ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS?

Father, appearing pro se, claims the district court properly found Mother in contempt of court and its remedies were appropriate. He also asserts that certain aspects of the district court’s order were not appealable and he is entitled to sanctions against Mother and her appellate counsel.

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding Mother in indirect civil contempt of court. [T]he district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Mother, as part of the sanctions for her contempt, to pay the girls’ travel expenses for winter break 2012-13 and spring break 2013. The district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring Mother to post a bond in an effort to hold her accountable to the court’s visitation order and provide immediate monetary security to Father in the event she refuses to comply. The district court stated in its findings of fact that it was ordering Mother to pay Father’s attorney fees because she had acted in defiance of the divorce decree and other court orders. Given the district court’s clear authority to award attorney fees and costs under these circumstances, the district court’s order was not erroneous. Affirmed.

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

[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. You will also note, when you look at the opinion, that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quotation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]