Summary 2014 WY 23

Summary of Decision February 20, 2014

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: DANIEL L. STEVENS v. KACIE J. STEVENS

Docket Number: S-13-0125

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

Appeal from the District Court of Park County the Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge

Representing Appellant: John P. Worrall of Worrall & Greear, P.C., Worland, WY

Representing Appellee: George Simonton, Cody, WY

Date of Decision: February 20, 2014

Facts: In his appeal from a divorce decree, Father challenges the district court’s property division, alimony award, child support determination, and custody award.

Issues: Father states the following five issues for our consideration: 1.The District Court abused its discretion in the division of property between the parties in this matter. 2. The District Court abused its discretion in determining to award alimony to the Appellee. 3. The District Court abused its discretion in failing to determine that the Appellee was voluntarily under employed (sic) as a hostess at a local restaurant rather than at her chosen profession as a Certified Public Accountant and in other ways in calculating child support. 4. The District Court abused its discretion in determining the custody and visitation of the minor children in this matter. 5. The District Court abused its discretion in reaching its decision in this matter as a whole.

Holdings/Conclusion: There was no singular, or cumulative, abuse of discretion by the district court. The property division stands as does the award of alimony to Mother. Custody and child support both track the statutory guidelines provided. Any deficiencies in the initial decision letter were remedied by follow up addendums and the final divorce decree. The trial court’s decision, in all aspects, is 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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 161

Summary of Decision December 27, 2013

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

Case Name: KELLY SUZANNE BRUSH, f/k/a KELLY SUZANNE DAVIS v. ROGER RYAN DAVIS

Docket Number: S-13-0081

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant: John D. Chambers, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Roger Ryan Davis, pro se.

Date of Decision: December 27, 2013

Facts: The district court modified custody and support for the parties’ minor child. Appellant Kelly Suzanne Brush f/k/a Kelly Suzanne Davis (Mother) appeals, claiming the district court did not have jurisdiction to grant a change of custody or support, she was denied due process of law when a default judgment was entered against her, and the district court abused its discretion when awarding child support.

Issues: I. Whether the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant a default judgment due to Appellee’s failure to comply with the statutory pleading requirements? II. Whether the Appellant was denied due process when default was improperly entered against her and subsequently, improperly upheld against Appellant? III. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in entering a child support [order] due to its failure to comply with statutory child support requirements?

Holdings/Conclusion: The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Father’s petition. In the absence of a basis to set aside the default judgment, Mother was given the process she was due. The district court’s decision was reasonable under the circumstances; therefore, it did not abuse its discretion. 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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 132

Summary of Decision October 17, 2013

Justice Davis delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded for entry of proper award, affirmed on all other issues.

Case Name: JERRY D. WALKER v. JACI S. WALKER

Docket Number: S-13-0063

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Richard “Zak” Szekely, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: No appearance.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2013

Facts: Appellant Jerry D. Walker (Father) filed a motion seeking primary residential custody of his daughter. Appellee Jaci S. Walker (Mother), who was the primary residential custodian under the parties’ divorce decree, opposed a change of custody and sought an increase in child support based on a claimed increase in Father’s income. The district court denied Father’s motion for a change of custody, finding no material change in circumstances. However, it found that Mother had proven that she was entitled to an increase in child support. It also awarded her a judgment for Father’s share of the child’s medical and other expenses she had paid.

Issues: 1. Did the district court err in finding that Mother was entitled to an increase in child support? 2. Did the district court have authority to award a judgment in any amount? 3. Did the district court err in failing to credit Father with payments he had made if it did have authority to award a judgment? 4. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion for a change of custody because it

Holdings/Conclusion: We find the district court’s child support calculation to be erroneous as a matter of law, and we therefore reverse and remand for appropriate proceedings to correct the error. The district court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 131

Summary of Decision October 17, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: THOMAS P. CAMPBELL v. TAMMIE J. HEIN, f/n/a TAMMIE J. CAMPBELL

Docket Number: S-13-0042

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

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County the Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellant: Christopher M. Wages of Goddard, Wages & Vogel, Buffalo, WY.

Representing Appellee: Brooke M. Barney of Barney & Graham, LLC, Sheridan, WY.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2013

Facts: Thomas Campbell (Husband) and Tammie Hein (Wife) were divorced in 2008 pursuant to a stipulated Property Settlement, Child Custody, Child Support Agreement. In 2010, Husband petitioned to reopen the Decree of Divorce, alleging that Wife had misrepresented material facts related to the parties’ division of debt. The district court denied Husband’s petition, and Husband appeals.

Issues: Whether the District Court erred when it entered its Order Denying Petition to Reopen Decree of Divorce and Counterclaim, dated November 30, 2012, and denied Defendant’s Petition to Reopen Decree of Divorce.

Holdings/Conclusion: We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to grant Husband’s petition to reopen the parties’ divorce decree. 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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 126

Summary of Decision October 11, 2013

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Case Names: ANGELA S. BAGLEY v. CAMERON KDELL BAGLEY

CAMERON KDELL BAGLEY v. ANGELA S. BAGLEY

Docket Numbers: S-12-0276; S-12-0277

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

Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant in Case No. S-12-0276: Jack D. Edwards of Edwards Law Office, P.C., Etna, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee in Case No. S-12-0276: Bret F. King of King & King, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 11, 2013

Facts: The district court granted Angela S. Bagley (Wife) a divorce, divided the parties’ property, determined child custody, and ordered Cameron Kdell Bagley (Husband) to pay child support. Both parties appealed. Wife claims the district court erred by refusing to award her child support for their adult disabled daughter because Wife was already receiving Social Security benefits for her. She also argues the district court erred in determining Husband’s net income for the purposes of calculating child support for the parties’ two minor children. Husband, on the other hand, contests the district court’s division of the parties’ property.

Issues: Wife presents the following issues on appeal: I. Did the district court err in concluding that [Husband] had no obligation to personally provide support for his adult daughter who suffers from mental and physical disabilities? II. Did the district court err in calculating [Husband’s] net monthly income for purposes of calculating child support?

Husband asserts those aspects of the district court’s rulings were correct, but queries: I. Did the district court err and abuse its discretion in its division of marital property by awarding [Wife] a money judgment of $149,500? II. Did the district court err and abuse its discretion by determining the value of the horseshoeing business to be $40,000? III. Did the district court err when it failed to provide an appropriate schedule of payments on the money judgment award?

Wife contends the district court’s division of the marital property was correct.

Holdings: After careful analysis and discussion of the support, property, residence and payment schedule the Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Affirmed, as corrected in part and reversed and remanded in part.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 97

Summary of Decision August 13, 2013

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF ARF, a minor child: JKS v. AHF

Docket Number: S-13-0031

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

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County the Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant: Keith R. Nachbar, Keith R. Nachbar, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Richard H. Peek, Attorney at Law, Casper, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: August 13, 2013

Facts: In this paternity proceeding, Father, JKS, appeals the district court’s decision to grant custody of their eight-year-old daughter, ARF, to Mother, AHF. He also challenges the district court’s calculation of child support arrearages and its imposition of time limits on the parties’ trial presentations.

Issues: We have rephrased and reordered the issues presented by Father as follows: 1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding custody to Mother? 2. Did the district court commit reversible error in its calculation of child support arrears? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in imposing a 160-minute limitation on each party’s trial presentation?

Holdings: We will affirm the district court’s decisions with respect to custody and the time limits. However, because the district court’s order does not comply with the statutory mandate to set forth the presumptive child support amount, we must reverse and remand the district court’s child support decision.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 76

Summary of Decision June 18, 2013

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

Case Name: MATTHEW OLIVER LEE v. NANCY W. LEE

Docket Number: S‑12‑0233

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: Mark J. Longfield of Longfield Law Office, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Molly Hartman Dearing of Dearing Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: June 18, 2013

Facts: Matthew Oliver Lee (Father) appeals from the district court’s order directing him to pay Nancy W. Lee (Mother) $680 per month in child support for the care of their minor child. Although the district court granted Father a downward deviation from the amount calculated with the child support guidelines, he claims the court erred by refusing to apply the joint custody child support statute.

Issues: Father presents a single issue on appeal: Did the district court abuse its discretion in finding that [Father] did not meet the requisite statutory guidelines for joint custody child support?

Mother also queries: Does this [C]ourt lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because [Father] failed to file a Notice of Appeal from the district court’s final order disposing of the issues in this case within the allotted time provided by Wyo. R. App. P. Rule 2.01?

Holdings: We disagree with some of the district court’s rationale; however, we conclude, in the end, it did not abuse its discretion. Consequently, we affirm.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 71

Summary of Decision June 6, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: LISA M. BARRETT OLIVER, f/k/a LISA M. QUAST v. MICHAEL G. QUAST

Docket Number: S-12-0219

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant: Dameione S. Cameron of Cameron Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Laura J. Jackson of Jackson Law Firm, L.L.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: June 6, 2013

Facts: Michael G. Quast, the appellee, petitioned the district court for modification of his child support payments. At the hearing related to that petition, the appellee and Lisa M. Quast, the appellant, agreed that certain provisions related to the division of their children’s college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in their property settlement and divorce agreement were in need of clarification. The district court modified the amount of child support owed by the appellee. Additionally, the district court determined that the appellant was voluntarily unemployed and imputed income to her for purposes of calculating the amount of income to attribute to each parent. The district court also added limitations to the college and extracurricular expense provisions. The appellant now appeals those decisions.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by imputing income to the appellant? Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying the terms of the Property Settlement and Child Custody Agreement?

Holdings: The appellant contends that the district court improperly imputed income to her in determining the new level of presumptive child support owed by the appellee and improperly modified provisions governing college tuition and extracurricular expenses contained in the property settlement and divorce agreement. The record on appeal lacks a transcript from the district court’s hearing on these issues. Without the transcript, we must accept as true the district court’s evidentiary findings. The appellant was unable to show that the district court abused its discretion. 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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 56

Summary of Decision May 9, 2013

Justice Hill delivered the opinion for the Court. Dismissed and Remanded.

Case Name: THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT v. CONNIE M. POWELL.

Docket Number: S-12-0192

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

Appeal from the District Court of Hot Springs County, the Honorable Robert E. Skar, Judge

Representing Appellant: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jared Crecelius, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee: No appearance filed.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2013

Facts: In 2009, the Wyoming Department of Family Services (Department) filed an action to enforce a 2003 order requiring Connie Powell to pay child support and certain related expenses. Instead of enforcing the 2003 order, the district court set aside the 2003 order, ordered that the child support obligation be recalculated, and directed that the revised child support obligation be applied retroactive to 1999, the date the children’s father obtained custody of the children. The Department appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion in setting aside the 2003 order.

Issues: The Department presents the following issue on appeal:

In 2012, the district court ordered a retroactive recalculation of child support against Connie Powell for child support arrears and medical and travel expenses even though neither the mother nor the father filed a motion or petition requesting modification of child support or relief from the judgment. Did the district court abuse its discretion by retroactively modifying the child support order and setting aside the judgment without a proper petition or motion from a party requesting such relief?

Holdings: The district court was without jurisdiction to modify the August 2003 child support order where no petition to modify had been filed. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal and remanded to the district court for entry of an order vacating the Order Setting Aside August 4, 2003 Judgment and Child Support Obligation filed on June 29, 2012.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 27

Summary of Decision March 7, 2013

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Justice Burke concurred in part and dissented in part, with whom Chief Justice Kite joins.

Case Name: BRANDON LEE JENSEN v. MARGARET E. MILATZO JENSEN

Docket Number: S-12-0080, S-12-0083

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

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Brandon L. Jensen, pro se, of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Wallace L. Stock and Lance T. Harmon of Bailey, Stock & Harmon P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2013

Facts: Brandon Lee Jensen, the appellant (Father), and Margaret E. Milatzo-Jensen, the appellee (Mother), divorced in 2007. In the litigation that followed the divorce, the district court granted Mother’s motion to modify the visitation schedule, denied Father’s request to present expert testimony, denied Father’s claims for child support abatement, denied Father’s petition to modify child support, partially reimbursed Father’s day-care expenses, and awarded attorney’s fees to Mother. Father now appeals those orders.

Issues: Did the district court abuse its discretion by modifying Father’s visitation schedule? Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Father’s request to present the testimony of two expert witnesses? Did the district court err by denying Father’s claims for abatement of child support? Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Father’s Petition to Modify Child Support? Did the district court abuse its discretion by not fully reimbursing Father for day-care expenses? Did the district court abuse its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees against Father?

Holdings: Father’s move to Colorado, which substantially disrupted the visitation schedule and substantially impacted the child’s life, represented a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to address whether a modification in the visitation schedule would be in the best interest of the child. Because of the long and frequent commutes, and the stress incurred by the child, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a modification was appropriate. Father did not show on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in excluding an expert witness with a potential conflict of interest and limiting the testimony of another expert witness by permitting her only to testify with regard to matters in dispute. Father meets the statutory requirements for abatement in child support. We remand to the district court for a determination of the appropriate amount of that abatement. Because we affirm the modification to the visitation schedule, which results in a reduction in Father’s time with the child, Father is not entitled to application of the shared custody support calculation provided in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(c). The district court abused its discretion by only partially reimbursing Father for day-care expenses because the divorce decree did not require Father to pay any day-care expenses while he was paying child support. The district court also abused its discretion in its award of attorney’s fees against Father because Mother presented insufficient evidence indicating that the fees requested were reasonable. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the district court for further appropriate action consonant herewith.

Justice Burke concurred in part and dissented in part, with whom Chief Justice Kite joins. See the full opinion for further comment.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2013 WY 25

Summary of Decision March 5, 2013


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

Case Name: RAYMOND ALEXANDER VERHEYDT v. TAMMI WAI-PING VERHEYDT

Docket Number: S-12-0153

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

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

Representing Appellant: Galen Woelk of Aaron & Hennig, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Elizabeth Greenwood and Inga L. Parsons of Greenwood Law, LLC, Pinedale, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: March 5, 2013

Facts: Tammi Wai-Ping Verheydt (Wife) and Raymond Alexander Verheydt (Husband) were divorced by decree entered February 27, 2012. Husband appealed, claiming the district court abused its discretion in imputing his monthly income and ordering him to pay child support for several months when he was living in the marital home after Wife filed for divorce and ordering him to pay half the cost of the children’s past and future activities as an upward deviation of child support. Husband also contended the district court deprived him of due process in making the above rulings without evidentiary support.

Issues: Husband presents the issues for this Court’s determination as follows:

1. The District Court imputed income to [Husband] without evidence supporting its findings.

2. The District Court’s upward deviation in child support is not supported by evidence, and does not conform to Wyoming’s statutory requirements.

3. The District Court cannot order child support and an upward deviation to that support, for time in which a parent resides with his children.

4. The District Court deprived [Husband] of his right to due process when it entered an order having no evidentiary support.

Holdings: The Court found that Husband waived his right to assert these claims on appeal and affirmed the district court’s rulings.

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 quote 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]

Summary 2012 WY 132

Summary of Decision October 12, 2012

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF AMP, a minor child. DLH v. JLA and JJA

Docket Number: S-12-0093

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

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Appellant: John R. Hursh, Central Wyoming Law Associates, P.C., Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: James A. Eddington, Jones & Eddington Law Offices, Torrington, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: October 12, 2012

Facts: Appellant, DLH, challenged the district court’s order granting the adoption of his four-year-old son, AMP, without Appellant’s consent.
Issues: The parties raise the following issue:

Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting JJA’s adoption of AMP without Appellant’s consent pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-22-110(a)(iv), due to Appellant’s willful failure to pay child support for a period of one year prior to the filing of the adoption petition, and his failure to bring his child support obligation current within 60 days after service of the petition.

Holdings: The district court’s conclusion that Appellant willfully failed to contribute to the support of his child is supported by the evidence. The evidence also supports the district court’s conclusion that Appellant failed to bring his child support obligation current within 60 days. Because it is undisputed that Appellant did not pay his accumulated arrearages, the Court cannot find that the district court abused its discretion in determining that this element of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-22-110(a)(iv) was satisfied. 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 quote 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]

Summary 2012 WY 78

Summary of Decision June 4, 2012


[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 quote 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]

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

Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF SDL, AJL and GASL, Minor Children: SL, Appellant (Respondent), v. CAD, Appellee (Petitioner).

Docket Number: S-11-0268

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

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff/Defendant): Pro se.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff/Defendant): Farrah L. Spencer, Long, Reimer, Winegar, Beppler, LLP, Park City, Utah.

Date of Decision: June 4, 2012

Facts: Father and Mother were divorced in Colorado in 2008. Six children had been born of the marriage. Mother was granted custody of the children, and Father was ordered to pay $686.00 per month for child support. Mother married Stepfather in 2009, and the couple moved to Wyoming with the three youngest children. By that time, the oldest child had joined the military. The second child remained in Colorado, living with the family of a friend. The third child moved into Father’s home.

In 2011, Stepfather filed a petition with the district court to adopt the three youngest children. Mother consented to the adoption. The petition alleged that Father’s consent was not required because he had willfully failed to satisfy his child support obligations. Father responded to the petition for adoption, disputing that he was in arrears with his child support payments, and raising several other issues.

The district court held a hearing on the matter on September 22, 2011. It heard testimony from Stepfather, Mother, Father, Father’s brother, and the third child. The district court later issued an order granting Stepfather’s petition for adoption. Father appealed from that order. Father, SL, resisted the petition by Stepfather, CAD, to adopt SL’s three youngest children. The district court approved the adoption over SL’s objections, and SL appealed.

Issues: Father, who appears pro se in this appeal as he did in the district court, lists several issues: 1)Did the district court err in calculating the arrearages in Father’s child support payments? 2)Did the district court misapply Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304(e) (LexisNexis 2011) by failing to give Father credit for social security payments made directly to Mother as child support? 3)Did the district court err in finding Stepfather “fit and competent” to adopt the children? 4)Did the district court err in failing to consider information contained in Father’s answer to the petition for adoption, in Father’s proposed findings of fact following the hearing in this matter, and in a letter sent to the court by Stepfather’s attorney after the hearing? 5)Did the district court err in denying Father’s motions for visitation with the children?

Stepfather presented this statement of the issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it granted the petition for adoption?

Holdings: The district court’s decision was affirmedJustice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 105

Summary of Decision July 8, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE:  This opinion uses the "Universal Citation."  It was given an "official" citation when it is 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 quote 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] 

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

Case Name: Eugene Dale Swaney v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement

Citation: 2011 WY 105

Docket Numbers: S-10-0261

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=463917

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Julie Hernandez and Rick Martinez of Legal Aid of Wyoming, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming; Wendy S. Ross of Parsons and Cameron, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: July 8, 2011

Facts:  Mother and Father, though unmarried, had three children together.  After the parties separated, Mother filed a Petition to Establish Paternity, Custody and Child Support.  Mother obtained custody of the children and Father was ordered to pay child support.  Father later became disabled, which eventually led to the issue presently before this Court: what credit, if any, should Father receive for disability benefit payments received after the disability was determined, against child support arrearages owed before he became disabled.

Issues: Whether the district court may credit Social Security disability benefits paid to dependent children against child support arrearages owed before the obligor became disabled.

Holdings: The Court has dealt previously with the issue of how Social Security disability benefit payments fit into the calculation of a child support obligation.  In short, benefit payments received directly by children are counted as part of the obligor’s income, but are also then credited against the resultant child support obligation.  The district court denied Father’s sought-after credit against pre-disability arrearages, but it did so by following the minority rule.  Under that minority rule, the district court considers the equities of the situation, and exercises its discretion in either granting or denying the petition for credit.  The Court believes that procedure runs contrary to the well-established principle that disability benefits paid to dependent children are the property of those children and runs contrary to the statutory language that allows an “offset” only for the period after benefit payments are being sent to the children’s custodian.

The district court may not credit Social Security disability benefits paid to dependent children against child support arrearages owed before the obligor became disabled.  Such benefits belong to the children, not to the obligor, and therefore are not available to be applied as a credit or offset to amounts owed by the obligor.  The Court affirmed the district court upon the grounds set forth above.

Justice Voigt delivered the opinion for the court. 

Summary 2011 WY 3

Summary of Decision January 11, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is 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 quote 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]

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

Case Name: Grenz v. Wyoming Dept. Family Services

Citation: 2011 WY 3

Docket Number: S-10-0089

URL: http://tinyurl.com/4h6ru39

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Sue Davidson, Aspen Ridge Law Offices, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Susan Kay Stipe, Assistant Attorney General

Date of Decision: January 11, 2011

Facts: Appellant challenged a district court order modifying his child support payments. He contends the district court failed to provide him proper credit against his child support obligations for court-ordered abatements he had received.

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it failed to follow and enforce the mandates of W.S. 20-2-305(f) and the abatement orders entered in this case and thereby committed an abuse of discretion.

Holdings: In light of the appellant’s knowledge of the abatement orders, his failure to adjust his child support payments according to those orders, and the statement that he intended for the abatement amounts to be used for his daughters’ support, the Court concluded that the unused abatements are the equivalent of voluntary overpayments of child support obligations. The appellant is not entitled to have those amounts refunded or used to reduce his future support obligations. There are compelling policy reasons for denying credit for abatements that have accumulated over the course of an eight-year period. It is important to note that a child support obligation “inures to the benefit of the child, not the custodial parent.” Given that child support is for the exclusive benefit of the child, it would be inequitable to allow child support to be increased at one time and reduced at another, as the child would be without needed support during periods when payments are reduced or terminated. In this case, although both children received the benefit of increased payments during periods of overpayment, only the younger daughter would be impacted by the corresponding reduction in support that would result from granting credit for unused abatements. Finally, the district court did provide the appellant some credit for his overpayments. The Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant credit for unused child support abatements. Affirmed.

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 164

Summary of Decision December 15, 2010

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is 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 quote 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]

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

Case Name: Egan v. Egan

Citation: 2010 WY 164

Docket Number: S-10-0065

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2bn4cy6

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, The Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Alex H. Sitz III of Meinecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Kori Kae Egan, pro se.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2010

Facts: The district court allowed a significant deviation from Mother’s child support obligation.

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion by considering improper factors in allowing the deviation from the presumptive amount of child support; and erred in calculating Mother’s net income for purposes of calculating child support.

Holdings: The district court did not abuse its discretion by looking at Mother’s total situation, including her health condition, her family’s current finances and her practical ability to earn additional money. Also, while the district court cannot include subsequent spouses’ income in calculating the presumptive child support amount, the district court did not abuse its discretion by looking at a subsequent spouse’s contribution in considering the payor’s ability to pay in determining whether deviation is appropriate.

As to the issue of net income calculation, under the clear language of the statute, Mother was entitled to the health care coverage deduction regardless of whether Father was providing health insurance for their children or not. In contrast, given that the legislature did not include disability insurance premiums or flex plan contributions in stating the allowable deductions, it was error for the district court to deduct those amounts in calculating Mother’s net income. However, this small difference was not prejudicial and did not require reversal of the order.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2010 WY 117

Summary of Decision issued August 18, 2010

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

Case Name: Erwin v. State, DFS

Citation: 2010 WY 117

Docket Number: S-09-0250

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge.

Representing Erwin: Duane A. Erwin, pro se.

Representing State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Elizabeth Bartels Lance, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Erwin challenged the district court’s order denying his petition to set aside a Montana divorce decree. The Montana decree was filed in Minnesota and Erwin contested the order. A hearing was held and an order entered denying Erwin’s motion.
The Wyoming district court did not explicitly address whether Erwin’s challenge to the validity of the Montana decree was barred as a result of the Minnesota litigation. The Court may affirm a district court’s decision on any proper legal grounds supported by the record. The issue decided by the Minnesota district court was identical to the issue presented to the Wyoming district court. Erwin was a party at both proceedings and had full opportunity to contest the validity of the Montana decree. Erwin was precluded from relitigating the validity of the decree.

Conclusion: The Court agreed that Erwin could not challenge the validity of the decree because the collateral estoppel requirements were satisfied.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/25pxwkz .

[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.]

Summary 2010 WY 115

Summary of Decision issued August 10, 2010

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

Case Name: Roemmich v. Roemmich

Citation: 2010 WY 115

Docket Number: S-10-0008

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge.

Representing Kari Roemmich: Stacy E. Casper of Casper Law Office, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Shane Roemmich: Nick Edward Beduhn of Goppert, Smith & Beduhn, Cody, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: When shared physical custody of their child failed, Kari Roemmich (Mother) filed a petition for custody modification seeking primary physical custody of the child with reasonable visitation for Shane Roemmich (Father). After a hearing on the petition, the district court awarded Father primary physical custody with reasonable visitation by Mother and ordered Mother to pay child support.

Requirements for modifying joint custody: In Harshberger the Court reiterated the rule in Wyoming that when both parents inform the court that a joint physical custody arrangement is not working, a sufficient change in circumstances justifying the reopening of the custody order has been presented to the district court. The district court was required pursuant to § 20-2-204(c) to determine what custody arrangement was in the child’s best interest.
Witness and exhibit designations: Father did not provide witnesses and exhibits to Mother within the thirty day limit set by W.R.C.P. 37. The district court determined that it was in the child’s best interest to allow Father to present his evidence while acknowledging that allowing it would be somewhat prejudicial to Mother.
Stalking protection order: Beyond summarizing the testimony from Father and Mother about the incidents leading to the protection order filed by Mother, the district court made no finding on the issue of spousal abuse and did not appear to have weighed it as a factor in determining the child’s best interest. While there was no question that Father harassed Mother by cell phone and that the parties fought on two occasions in the presence of the child, the Court concluded the district court reasonably could have determined from the totality of the evidence that the admitted harassment and alleged abuse was not sufficient to override the other factors it was required to consider in determining custody.
Findings contrary to the evidence: The district court’s decision letter confirmed Mother’s contention that it incorrectly assumed she would continue working nights. However, the letter reflected that the assumption was not the only or even a primary factor in its determination to award primary custody to Father. The incorrect assumption was not sufficient to establish that the district court abused its discretion in awarding primary custody to Father.
Visitation: The district court’s order did not address holiday and summer visitation. The parties agreed concerning holiday and summer visitation so it was appropriate to remand to the district court for entry of a revised order providing for visitation by Mother.
Child support: For reasons that do not appear in the record, the district court did not calculate child support using the net income imputed to Mother in the divorce decree. On remand, the district court will need to recalculate Mother’s child support obligation based on the parties’ respective incomes as incorporated in the divorce decree, or request the parties to submit financial affidavits.

Conclusion: The district court’s modification order awarding primary physical custody to Father was affirmed. The case was remanded to the district court for a revised order setting out holiday and summer visitation and calculating child support.

Affirmed custody and remanded visitation and child support.

C.J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/22jnuew .

[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.]

Summary 2010 WY 70

Summary of Decision issued May 28, 2010

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

Case Name: Lauderman v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services ex rel. JEN

Citation: 2010 WY 70

Docket Number: S-09-0100

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Wendy Press Sweeny, Worland, Wyoming

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Elisabeth B. Lance, Assistant Attorney General

Representing Appellee Russell Nomura: David M. Clark, of Worrall & Greear, Worland, Wyoming

Issues: Whether the district court abused its discretion in calculating the parties’ respective incomes. Whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain letters illustrating respondent father’s efforts to find employment into evidence.

Holdings: Mother first objects to the district court’s finding that she was voluntarily unemployed. The evidence supports this finding. Mother had worked as a welder in 2007. After she was let go from that job, she decided to be a stay-at-home mother. Mother testified that there were welding jobs currently available in her town, which she was physically capable of performing. She wasn’t applying for them because she didn’t want to be away from her children. Given this testimony, it was well within the district court’s discretion to find Mother voluntarily unemployed.
Mother next objects to the amount of income imputed to her. In 2007, when she was working as a welder, she was earning $16.00 per hour. Mother testified that jobs were available at the time of the hearing and were paying $16.00 per hour. Mother’s own evidence supports the district court’s decision to impute to her a salary of $16.00 per hour.
Mother’s objection continues that the district court abused its discretion when it did not subtract any amount for federal income tax. The district court’s calculations show that it considered federal income tax. It determined the tax credits available to Mother exceeded the amount of federal income tax owed based on the imputed salary. In making this determination, the district court adopted figures provided by the DFS indicating the amount of earned income credit and child tax credit would be more than the federal income tax due. The district court’s reliance on the DFS calculation is reasonable under the circumstances.
Mother contends Father should be found to be voluntarily underemployed. The evidence shows that Father worked as a drywaller for 18 years. He owned and operated a drywall business in the Jackson area. When business declined in the Jackson area Father relocated to Worland. Despite his attempts to keep the business going, Father testified there was simply no work available. Father even looked for jobs in the oil field sector but was unable to find anything. Given the evidence, there is no credence in Mother’s contentions that Father isn’t looking hard enough or in a wide enough geographic scope.
Mother next takes issue with the district court’s computation of Father’s income. First, she argues the district court should have included in-kind benefits Father received from his business as income. Mother does not, however, identify any in-kind benefits received by Father.
Mother also argues the district court erred in not including certain draws Father took from his business in 2008 as income. Father’s accountant, however, explained that draws are unrelated to business income. Draws come from money already in the business that could have been earned at any time during the business’s existence. Father’s future income, therefore, would be limited to amounts earned during the current year. Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in not factoring the draws into Father’s income for child support purposes.
Finally, Mother argues the district court abused its discretion in using Father’s 2008 income instead of his 2007 income. The district court explained its decision in its order. It did not use Father’s 2007 income because it did not accurately reflect current economic conditions. The district court determined Father was not likely to be able to earn the same amount in the future. Given the well-documented collapse of the construction industry, as well as Father’s testimony as to how the economic downturn is affecting him personally, the district court was within its discretion in relying on Father’s 2008 actual income as more appropriately indicative of Father’s future earning capacity.
During the hearing, to support his testimony that he had been actively looking for work, Father offered multiple letters from contractors stating they had no work available for him. The district court admitted the letters into evidence over Mother’s several objections including a hearsay objection. The decision of whether or not to admit evidence lies within the discretion of the trial court. A trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion. As always, even if it is determined that the trial court erred in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, errors which are harmless will be disregarded. In the present action, the court need not consider whether the admission of the letters constituted error because, even if it did, Mother was not prejudiced by such introduction. The district court listened to Mother’s objections and admitted the letters over the objections stating “[t]he Court can give them the weight that it determines, so I don’t think that it’s going to be prejudicial.” There is no further indication that the district court relied on the letters, nor was it necessary for the district court to do so. Father testified extensively as to his continuing job search. The letters did nothing more than corroborate that testimony.

There was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s calculation of the parties’ respective incomes for child support purposes. The decision is reasonable under the circumstances. There was also find no harm in the introduction of letters corroborating Father’s extensive testimony on his attempts to find work.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

J. Hill dissented: The proceedings that are included in the record on appeal are insufficient to disturb the status quo.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/27d4wq4 .

[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.]

Summary 2009 WY 58

Summary of Decision issued April 28, 2009

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

Case Name: Steele v. Neeman

Citation: 2009 WY 58

Docket Number: S-08-0117

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Dan. R. Price II, Judge.

Representing Appellant Steele (Mother): Christopher M. Wages of Goddard, Wages & Vogel, Buffalo, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee Neeman (Father): DaNece Day and Christopher R. Ringer of Lubnau & Bailey, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Mother sought an upward modification of child support against Father. The district court modified the child support amount but downward to less than half the statutorily determined presumptive amount. The district court cited the child’s poor relationship with the father which included lack of visitation as the reason for deviation.

Deviation from presumptive child support amount: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-304 established a method for determining child support amounts based on the parents’ incomes. The amount determined is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support to be awarded in any proceeding to establish or modify temporary or permanent child support amounts. Section 20-2-307(b) established the method by which the determining court might deviate from the presumptive amount. As the Court stated in Sharpe, lack of visitation and negative feelings between a noncustodial parent and child are not proper factors that a court may consider in determining whether to deviate from the presumptive support guidelines. The amount of time a child spends with each parent is relevant only in regard to calculating the expenses each parent incurs when physically in custody of a child.

Conclusion: A parent is supposed to be a financial resource for his/her child. It is a responsibility of parenthood. This responsibility exists regardless of visitation or negative feelings between parent and child. The district court erred when it used those criteria as the basis for deviating from the established presumptive child support.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Golden delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/d6ykwj .

[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.]