Bruce v. Bruce

• Decision Date: 04 March 2021
• Docket Number: S-20-0118
• Citation: 482 P.3d 328
• Parties: Robert Henry BRUCE, Appellant (Defendant), v. Aubrey Paige BRUCE, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

482 P.3d 328

Robert Henry BRUCE, Appellant (Defendant),

v.Aubrey Paige BRUCE, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-20-0118

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 4, 2021

Representing Appellant: Sarah J. Manwarren of Jacobs Law, P.C., Evington, Virginia.

Representing Appellee: Linda J. Steiner and Abigail E. Fournier of Steiner, Fournier & Zook, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] Robert Henry Bruce (Father) appeals the district court's Findings, Conclusions, and Decree of Divorce in the proceedings between him and Aubrey Paige Bruce (Mother). Father argues the court abused its discretion in awarding Mother physical custody of the children and in determining his child support obligation. We affirm in all respects.

ISSUES

[¶2] Father presents five issues pertaining to the district court's determinations regarding child custody and support. We consolidate and restate them as:

I. Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding Mother physical custody?

II. Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining the child support award?

FACTS

[¶3] The parties, both from Massachusetts, were married in February 2012. In June 2012, Father was stationed to Warren Air Force Base and the couple moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Two children were born during the marriage, BMB in 2012 and BBB in 2014. After Mother got pregnant with BBB, she became a stay at home caregiver.

[¶4] Mother filed for divorce on January 3, 2018. The following day, she moved back to Massachusetts with the children without telling Father. Mother obtained Massachusetts state benefits to help support herself and the children, and enrolled BMB in school. Mother and the children continue to reside in Massachusetts.

[¶5] Father filed a counterclaim for divorce and a motion for temporary custody. He requested sole custody and control of the children, alleging Mother was mentally ill, unstable, and unfit to parent. In a counter-motion for temporary custody, Mother alleged Father was mentally and verbally abusive to her and the children. Due to the competing motions, the district court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) to represent the best interests of the children and make a custody recommendation.

[¶6] After a hearing in July 2018, the court awarded Mother temporary physical custody subject to Father's visitation. The court ordered Father to pay "any and all transportation expenses," and set his temporary child support obligation at $0 due to the expense of traveling between Wyoming and Massachusetts for visitation.¹ In January 2019, the parties settled property matters, leaving the court to determine only permanent custody, visitation, and child support.

[¶7] The district court held a three-day custody trial April 29 to May 1, 2019. Each party sought physical custody and child support. The GAL recounted his observations, explained both parties were good parents who loved their children, and recommended the court award Mother custody.

[¶8] After trial and before the court issued a decision, Father filed a motion to reopen the case to present "newly discovered evidence." At the center of his motion were allegations made to Father by James Pina, a man who claimed to have spent time with Mother regularly between February and May 2019, having sexual relations and smoking marijuana. Mr. Pina sent Father images Mother had sent him of herself and images of Mother and Mr. Pina together. Father asserted the evidence "impeaches [Mother's] trial testimony" and "would result in a different recommendation by the Court appointed [GAL]." The court held a hearing in November 2019 to consider this evidence and hear testimony from Mother. At the hearing, the GAL changed his position and recommended that Father have physical custody.

[¶9] The court entered its findings, conclusions, and decree of divorce in March 2020. In regard to the evidence involving Mr. Pina, the court found: no inconsistencies existed between Mr. Pina's deposition and Mother's trial testimony and no evidence showed Mother lied at trial; Mr. Pina's testimony was credible where it aligned with Mother's November testimony; where Mr. Pina's testimony contradicted Mother's, Mr. Pina was not credible; Mr. Pina's testimony was subject to impeachment all along because Father's father (the children's paternal grandfather) paid for Mr. Pina's attorney in another matter in Massachusetts; and, the images Mr. Pina provided lacked foundation. The district court decided it would resist the temptation to weigh this evidence against Father and instead would not consider the post-trial evidence.

[¶10] The decree awarded Mother physical custody and granted Father standard visitation rights. The court ordered Father to pay child support. Finding Father's net income was $2,734, and Mother's was $965, it set child support at the presumptive amount of $830.54 and ordered Father to pay retroactive to May 1, 2019, the last day of the custody trial. Father appealed.

[¶11] Additional facts will be included in the discussion as necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶12] "We review the court's divorce decree for abuse of discretion." Edwards v. Edwards , 2020 WY 35, ¶ 10, 459 P.3d 448, 450 (Wyo. 2020).

Custody, visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Scherer v. Scherer , 931 P.2d 251, 253–54 (Wyo. 1997) ; Triggs v. Triggs , 920 P.2d 653, 657 (Wyo. 1996) ; Basolo v. Basolo , 907 P.2d 348, 352 (Wyo. 1995).... "We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle." Fink [v. Fink] , 685 P.2d [34, 36 (Wyo. 1984)].

A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Pinther v. Pinther , 888 P.2d 1250, 1252 (Wyo. 1995) (quoting Dowdy v. Dowdy , 864 P.2d 439, 440 (Wyo. 1993) ). Our review entails evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's decision, and we afford the prevailing party every favorable inference while omitting any consideration of evidence presented by the unsuccessful party. Triggs , 920 P.2d at 657 ; Cranston v. Cranston , 879 P.2d 345, 351 (Wyo. 1994). Findings of fact not supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence cannot be sustained. Jones v. Jones , 858 P.2d 289, 291 (Wyo. 1993).

Id. (quoting Johnson v. Johnson , 2020 WY 18, ¶ 10, 458 P.3d 27, 32 (Wyo. 2020) ). We review questions of law regarding child support determinations de novo. Kimzey v. Kimzey , 2020 WY 52, ¶ 13, 461 P.3d 1229, 1235 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Walker v. Walker , 2013 WY 132, ¶ 44, 311 P.3d 170, 179 (Wyo. 2013) ).

DISCUSSION

I. Child Custody

[¶13] Father challenges the district court's custody determination in two ways. He claims it was not in the children's best interests to award Mother physical custody, and the district court abused its discretion by not following the GAL's November 2019 custody recommendation.

A. Children's Best Interests

[¶14] When ruling on child custody, the district court has discretion to determine what arrangement is in the children's best interests. Johnson , ¶ 12, 458 P.3d at 32 (citation omitted); see Sears v. Sears , 2021 WY 20, ¶ 14, 479 P.3d 767, 772 (Wyo. 2021). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 2019) provides that "the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the following factors" when considering custody arrangements:

(i) The quality of the relationship each child has with each parent;

(ii) The ability of each parent to provide adequate care for each child throughout each period of responsibility, including arranging for each child's care by others as needed;

(iii) The relative competency and fitness of each parent;

(iv) Each parent's willingness to accept all responsibilities of parenting, including a willingness to accept care for each child at specified times and to relinquish care to the other parent at specified times;

(v) How the parents and each child can best maintain and strengthen a relationship with each other;

(vi) How the parents and each child interact and communicate with each other and how such interaction and communication may be improved;

(vii) The ability and willingness of each parent to allow the other to provide care without intrusion, respect the other parent's rights and responsibilities, including the right to privacy;

(viii) Geographic distance between the parents’ residences;

(ix) The current physical and mental ability of each parent to care for each child;

(x) Any other factors the court deems necessary and relevant.

[¶15] Father claims the district court erred in weighing these factors and awarding physical custody to Mother because that decision was "directly contrary to the evidence presented at trial." Father's main argument is that factor (iii) should have weighed in his favor.² He largely relies on the post-trial testimony of Mr. Pina to support that assertion, claiming it "certainly goes to [Mother's] relative competency and fitness." He contends the district court erred when it concluded Mr. Pina's images lacked foundation and decided not to consider the post-trial evidence. Father asserts foundation for the images was proper under W.R.E. 901(a) and had the court considered this evidence, it "may have changed the outcome of trial[.]"

[¶16] We review a district court's decision on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. Matter of L-MHB , 2020 WY 1, ¶ 12, 454 P.3d 935, 938 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Matter of GAC , 2017 WY 65, ¶ 32, 396 P.3d 411, 419 (Wyo. 2017) ); see Hanson v. Belveal , 2012 WY 98, ¶ 15, 280 P.3d 1186, 1192 (Wyo. 2012). "A trial court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence are entitled to considerable deference, and, as long as there exists a legitimate basis for the trial court's ruling, that ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. The appellant bears the burden of showing an abuse of...