Ailport v. Ailport
Citation | 2022 WY 43 |
Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
Docket Number | S-21-0166 |
Parties | JILL REBECCA AILPORT and SHANE ARTHUR AILPORT, Appellants (Petitioners), v. TRAVIS AILPORT; SHELLEY AILPORT; DUSTIN AILPORT; LEXIE AILPORT and JESSICA LESSER, Appellees (Respondents). |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming |
Appeal from the District Court of Converse County The Honorable F Scott Peasley, Judge
Representing Appellants:
Anna Reeves Olson, Park Street Law Office, Casper, Wyoming; Tyler J. Garrett, Hathaway & Kunz LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Olson and Mr. Garrett.
Representing Appellees:
Judith Studer, Elizabeth B. Grill, and Patrick T. Holscher of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Studer and Ms. Grill.
Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS [*] , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] Jill Rebecca Ailport and Shane Arthur Ailport (collectively referred to as "Grandparents") are the grandparents of five children (collectively referred to as "Children"). They filed a petition against the parents of Children-Travis Ailport, Shelley Ailport, Dustin Ailport, Lexie Ailport, and Jessica Lesser (collectively referred to as "Parents")-to establish visitation under the grandparent visitation statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann § 20-7-101 (LexisNexis 2021). The district court ruled Grandparents did not prove their right to visitation under the statute and denied their petition. We affirm on somewhat different grounds than those relied upon by the district court.
[¶2] Although Grandparents state different issues for our review, we conclude resolution of the following issues is necessary to decide this appeal:
[¶3] Travis and Dustin are Grandparents' sons, and they are married to Shelley and Lexie, respectively.[1] Travis and Jessica Lesser were previously in a relationship and are CJA's parents. Travis and Shelley are CA and ZA's parents, and Dustin and Lexie are RA and BA's parents. In August 2019, a rift developed between Grandparents and Parents.
[¶4] A few months later, Grandparents filed a petition against Parents under § 20-7-101 to establish visitation rights with Children. Grandparents claimed the district court was required to order visitation because it was in Children's best interests and it would not substantially impair Parents' rights. Parents opposed court-ordered visitation. While they agreed visitation with Grandparents was, in principle, in Children's best interests, they wanted to retain the authority to decide when, where, and under what conditions visitation would take place. In general, Parents preferred to supervise the four younger Children's visitation with Grandparents because they were all under seven years old at the time of the trial and had spent little time alone with Grandparents. Travis, Jessica, and Shelley indicated a willingness to allow Grandparents more contact with CJA, who was older and had a more established relationship with them. On the other hand, Grandparents wanted to control the location and conditions of visitation with all the children through a court order.
[¶5] The district court adopted an enhanced best interest analysis to bring § 20-7-101 in accord with the substantive due process principles set out by the United States Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).[2]Applying the test, the district court concluded Grandparents had not met their burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence they were entitled to visitation over Parents' objections. Grandparents appealed. We will provide additional facts in our discussion of the issues.
[¶6] At common law, grandparents had no right to visitation with their grandchildren unless the parents allowed it. Michael v. Hertzler, 900 P.2d 1144, 1146 (Wyo. 1995) (citing Matter of Adoption of RDS, 787 P.2d 968 (Wyo. 1990)). See also, Hede v. Gilstrap, 2005 WY 24, ¶ 33, 107 P.3d 158, 172 (Wyo. 2005) ( )(citations omitted). In 1991, the Wyoming legislature created an original action for grandparents to seek court-ordered visitation with their grandchildren. Michael, 900 P.2d at 1147; § 20-7-101. The general justifications for grandparent visitation laws are:
Goff v. Goff, 844 P.2d 1087, 1090-91 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Mimkon v. Ford, 332 A.2d 199, 204-05 (N.J. 1975)).
[¶7] In Michael, we considered a substantive due process challenge to the 1994 version of Wyoming's grandparent visitation statute, which stated in relevant part:
Vaughn v. State, 2017 WY 29, ¶ 26, 391 P.3d 1086, 1095 (Wyo. 2017).
[¶8] In Michael, 900 P.2d at 1148, we recognized parents have a fundamental due process right to raise their children as they see fit and make decisions regarding their associations without interference from the government. See also, Meyer v. Neb., 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923) ( ). Because § 20-7-101 interfered with these fundamental rights, we applied strict scrutiny to determine whether the statute satisfied due process. Michael, 900 P.2d at 1148. Strict scrutiny Id. (citing State in the Interest of C, 638 P.2d 165, 173 (Wyo. 1981)). We held the State, in its role as parens patriae, has a compelling interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of children, which, under proper circumstances, may include fostering the relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren. Id. at 1149.
[¶9] To balance the various interests at stake, § 20-7-101 (1994) required proof "visitation [was] in the best interest of the child and the rights of the child's parents [were] not substantially impaired." Id. at 1151. We ruled the statute was "sufficiently narrowly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tep Rocky Mountain LLC v. Record TJ Ranch Ltd.
...a district court's findings of fact after a bench trial " ‘for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.’ " Ailport v. Ailport, 2022 WY 43, ¶ 36, 507 P.3d 427, 440 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Wheeldon v. Elk Feed Grounds House, LLC, 2021 WY 71, ¶ 11, 488 P.3d 916, 919 (Wyo. 2021) ). See also......
-
TEP Rocky Mountain LLC v. Record TJ Ranch Ltd. P'ship
... ... We review a district court's findings of fact ... after a bench trial "'for clear error and its ... conclusions of law de novo.'" Ailport v ... Ailport, 2022 WY 43, ¶ 36, 507 P.3d 427, 440 (Wyo ... 2022) (quoting Wheeldon v. Elk Feed Grounds House, ... LLC, 2021 WY 71, ¶ 11, ... ...
-
Conrad v. The Uinta Cnty. Republican Party
...the legislature's intent. Id. We begin by considering the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used by the legislature. Ailport v. Ailport, 2022 WY 43, ¶ 22, 507 P.3d 427, 437 (Wyo. 2022). See also, Butler v. State, 2015 WY 119, ¶ 7, 358 P.3d 1259, 1262 (Wyo. 2015) (When interpreting a s......
-
Flory v. Flory
...to their ordinary and obvious meaning.'" Dellos Farms, Inc. v. Sec. State Bank, 2022 WY 107, ¶ 9, 516 P.3d 846, 848 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Ailport, ¶ 22, 507 P.3d 437) (other citation omitted). "'We give effect to each word, clause and sentence chosen by the legislature, and construe them in ......
-
Court Summaries
...dismiss Appellants' petition for review. Jill & Shane Ailport v. Travis, Shelley, Dustin, and Lexie Ailport, and Jessica Lesser. S-21-0166 2022 WY 43 March 31, 2022 Jill and Shane Ailport are the grandparents of five children and they filed a petition against the parents of the children (Tr......