BJ v. KM
Decision Date | 26 February 2021 |
Docket Number | S-20-0143 |
Parties | BJ, Appellant (Petitioner), v. KM and CM, Appellees (Respondents). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Tracy L. Zubrod, Joshua W. Case, and Cameron M. Smith, Student Intern, Zubrod Law Office, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Smith.
Representing Appellee KM: Benjamin J. Sherman and Boyd O. Wiggam, Olsen Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Sherman.
Representing Appellee CM: Linda J. Steiner, Abigail E. Fournier, and Joanne S. Zook, Steiner, Fournier & Zook, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Fournier.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] KM (Mother) gave birth to ALM while married to CM (ALM's presumed father). Another man, BJ, claimed to be ALM's father and filed a Petition to Establish Paternity. The district court held BJ lacked standing to bring the action and dismissed his petition. BJ appealed. We reverse.
[¶2] Does a man claiming to be the biological father of a child have standing to bring a paternity action when the child has a legally presumed father?
[¶3] Around 2008, Mother married CM. Later, the two of them entered into an open relationship with BJ and his wife. On August 11, 2018, Mother messaged BJ's wife stating that she was pregnant, and it was possible that BJ was the child's biological father. Mother gave birth to ALM in 2019 while married to CM. On May 21, 2019, BJ filed a Petition to Establish Paternity, Custody, Visitation, [and] Child Support. Mother filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because ALM has a presumed father. The district court issued an order joining the presumed father, CM, as a necessary party and set a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the district court concluded that BJ lacked standing under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802 and dismissed his petition. BJ appealed.
[¶4] "Our review of a motion to dismiss, whether under W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1), is de novo." Allred v. Bebout , 2018 WY 8, ¶ 29, 409 P.3d 260, 268 (Wyo. 2018). "[W]e employ the same standards and examine the same materials as the district court:
we accept the facts alleged in the complaint or petition as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Moose Hollow Holdings, LLC v. Teton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs , 2017 WY 74, ¶ 20, 396 P.3d 1027, 1033 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Guy v. Lampert , 2015 WY 148, ¶ 12, 362 P.3d 331, 335 (Wyo. 2015) ). Dismissal is appropriate only if it is certain on the face of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot assert any facts that create entitlement to relief. Dowlin v. Dowlin , 2007 WY 114, ¶ 6, 162 P.3d 1202, 1204 (Wyo. 2007) ; Ecosystem Res., L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Res., L.L.C. , 2007 WY 87, ¶ 8, 158 P.3d 685, 687 (Wyo. 2007) ; W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
[¶5] "The existence of standing is a question of justiciability that we review de novo." Bird v. Lampert , 2019 WY 56, ¶ 7, 441 P.3d 850, 853–54 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Matter of Adoption of L-MHB , 2018 WY 140, ¶ 24, 431 P.3d 560, 568 (Wyo. 2018) ). Statutory interpretation is also a question of law reviewed de novo. Matter of Paternity of AAAE , 2020 WY 117, ¶ 16, 471 P.3d 990, 994 (Wyo. 2020) (citing DNW v. State, Dep't of Family Servs. , 2007 WY 54, ¶ 8, 154 P.3d 990, 992 (Wyo. 2007) ); see also Adekale v. State , 2015 WY 30, ¶ 12, 344 P.3d 761, 765 (Wyo. 2015).
[¶6] BJ argues that the district court erred in dismissing his Petition to Establish Paternity. He contends he has standing under the plain language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(iii). Both CM and Mother dispute this claim. CM contends Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(iii) only grants standing to an individual who is a presumed, acknowledged, or adjudicated father. BJ is an alleged father. Mother argues BJ lacks standing because ALM has a presumed father and, as a stranger to the relationship, BJ cannot rebut CM's status under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-807.1
A. Analysis
[¶7] At issue here is the meaning and interaction of two statutes in the Wyoming Parentage Act— Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802 as qualified by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-807. In 1977, the Wyoming Legislature adopted the Uniform Parentage Act of 1973 in derogation of the common law. Matter of TRG , 665 P.2d 491, 497 (Wyo. 1983) ; Vigil v. Tafoya , 600 P.2d 721, 723 (Wyo. 1979). Prior to Wyoming's adoption of the Uniform Parentage Act, an action for paternity was governed by common law. Under common law, "a biological father could not bring an action for paternity." A v. X, Y, & Z , 641 P.2d 1222, 1222 (Wyo. 1982) (citing Blanton v. Warn , 444 P.2d 325 (Wyo. 1968) ).
[¶8] The Uniform Parentage Act of 2000, later amended in 2002, replaced the Uniform Parentage Act of 1973. In re Parentage of Calcaterra , 114 Wash.App. 127, 56 P.3d 1003, 1004 n.1 (2002). The Wyoming Legislature substantially followed the 2002 Uniform Parentage Act when it enacted the Wyoming Parentage Act in 2003. Act of July 1, 2003, ch. 93, 2003 Wyo. Laws 206; Tonya A. Morse, An Overview of the New Wyoming Parentage Act : Changes to Title 14 , Wyo. Law., Dec. 2003, at 26, 35. The Wyoming Parentage Act is the exclusive means for a biological father to adjudicate paternity in this state. AAAE , ¶ 17, 471 P.3d at 995.
[¶9] If BJ has standing to bring this action, his standing must be found in the Wyoming Parentage Act. To interpret whether the statute grants BJ standing, we employ our well-known canons of statutory construction. First, the Court must determine whether Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-2-802 and 14-2-807 are clear or whether they are ambiguous. Wyodak Res. Dev. Corp. v. Wyoming Dep't of Revenue , 2017 WY 6, ¶ 25, 387 P.3d 725, 732 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Lance Oil & Gas Co. v. Wyoming Dep't of Revenue , 2004 WY 156, ¶ 4, 101 P.3d 899, 901 (Wyo. 2004) ). "A ‘statute is unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able to agree as to its meaning with consistence and predictability.’ " Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n , 845 P.2d 1040, 1043 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization , 813 P.2d 214, 220 (Wyo. 1991) ). However, "[a] statute is ambiguous if it is vague or uncertain and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation." Wyodak , ¶ 27, 387 P.3d at 732 (citing RME Petroleum Co. v. Wyoming Dep't of Revenue , 2007 WY 16, ¶ 25, 150 P.3d 673, 683 (Wyo. 2007) ). To discern whether a statute is clear or ambiguous, the Court examines "the plain and ordinary meaning of the words." Id. ¶ 25, 387 P.3d at 732 (quoting RME , ¶ 25, 150 P.3d at 683 ). The Court "give[s] effect to each word, clause and sentence chosen by the legislature, and construe[s] them in pari materia ." Id. ¶ 26, 387 P.3d at 732 (citing Pedro/Aspen, Ltd. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Natrona Cnty. , 2004 WY 84, ¶ 27, 94 P.3d 412, 420 (Wyo. 2004) ). "If the statutory language is sufficiently clear and unambiguous, the Court simply applies the words according to their ordinary and obvious meaning." Id. ¶ 26, 387 P.3d at 732 (quoting In re CRA , 2016 WY 24, ¶ 16, 368 P.3d 294, 298 (Wyo. 2016) ). Once a statute is determined to be clear and unambiguous, "there is no room for construction, and a court may not look for and impose another meaning." Adekale , ¶ 12, 344 P.3d at 765 (citing Crain v. State , 2009 WY 128, ¶ 8, 218 P.3d 934, 938 (Wyo. 2009) ). We address each statute separately.
[¶10] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a) identifies who has standing to bring an action to adjudicate parentage. The statute states:
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(i)–(vi) (LexisNexis 2019) (emphasis added). Here, the Court is concerned with the meaning of "[a] man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(iii).2
[¶11] We begin by examining the plain and ordinary meaning of the words in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(iii) to determine if its language is clear or ambiguous. See Wyodak , ¶ 25, 387 P.3d at 732. Two of these words are expressly defined within the Wyoming Parentage Act. The word "man" is defined as "a male individual of any age[.]" Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-402(a)(xi). "Child" is defined as "an individual of any age whose parentage may be determined ...." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-402(a)(v). The words "paternity" and "adjudication" are not defined in the Wyoming Parentage Act, but both words have an ordinary meaning. Black's Law Dictionary defines "paternity" as "[t]he quality, state, or condition of being a father, esp[ecially] a biological one; fatherhood." Paternity , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). It defines "adjudication" as "[t]he legal process of resolving a dispute ...." Adjudication , Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Using these definitions, the language "[a] man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated" confers standing to a male individual of any age who petitions a court to determine whether or not he is the father of a child.
[¶12] The language in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(iii) is clear and unambiguous. BJ qualifies as "[a] man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-802(a)(iii). He has standing under the plain meaning of the statute.
[¶13] CM and Mother maintain that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-807 restricts an alleged father's standing under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial