Castellow v. Pettengill

• Decision Date: 03 August 2021
• Docket Number: S-21-0001
• Citation: 492 P.3d 894
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Parties: Cortni CASTELLOW, Appellant (Respondent), v. Bryan PETTENGILL, Appellee (Petitioner).

492 P.3d 894

Cortni CASTELLOW, Appellant (Respondent),

v.Bryan PETTENGILL, Appellee (Petitioner).

S-21-0001

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

August 3, 2021

Representing Appellant: Stacy M. Kirven, Kirven Law, LLC, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Wendy S. Owens^* , Legal Aid of Wyoming, Gillette, Wyoming.

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

FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Bryan Pettengill (Father) and Cortni Castellow (Mother) share a child, CP. Father filed a petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support and the district court entered a temporary custody order November 9, 2017, establishing fifty-fifty shared custody. Mother and Father each asked for primary physical custody at the bench trial two years later. Both parties requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) and, more than a year after the bench trial, the district court entered its order requiring shared custody. Mother appealed, and we reverse and remand.

ISSUES

[¶2] We consolidate and rephrase Mother's issues:

I. Was the district court's delay in issuing the final order reversible error?

II. Are the Rule 52(a)(1)(A) findings sufficient to support the district court's order for shared custody?

FACTS

[¶3] CP was born in March 2013. After Father and Mother's relationship ended, Father moved out, but remained in town. He and Mother entered into an informal fifty-fifty shared custody arrangement.

[¶4] In July 2017, Mother began a new relationship, which strained the informal custody arrangement. Father filed his petition to establish custody, visitation, and child support at the end of August 2017. On November 9, 2017, the district court entered its Order on Temporary Custody and ordered Mother and Father to share physical custody of CP, alternating weekly. During this time, the parties had some difficulty communicating and respecting one another's parenting time and choices. Mother is deeply religious; she accused Father of "attacking" her faith by letting CP watch the Disney movie, Hercules. Mother also made statements to CP about Father's lack of belief—CP reportedly said that, "Dad has sinned in his heart if he didn't believe in God, then he has—he would have the devil in him." Meanwhile, Father withheld CP from Mother for a month prior to the November 2 hearing. After an issue arose between CP and ML, the daughter of Father's fiancée, Father suggested play therapy for CP. Mother declined, but later decided CP should attend counseling. Without consulting Father, Mother selected Dr. Khanh Tran. Despite these difficulties, the parties largely adhered to the shared custody arrangement.

[¶5] The district court held a one-day hearing on Father's petition September 4, 2019. At the start of the hearing, both parties requested written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a). Each party also requested primary physical custody with visitation for the other parent. Mother called Dr. Tran who testified that the current week-to-week schedule was not in CP's best interest because there was no way to easily transition between the different homes and parenting styles. Dr. Tran also testified that shared custody could succeed, but only if both parties put in "a lot of work" to learn to effectively co-parent. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court expressed disappointment that neither parent advocated for a shared custody arrangement, asked the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than September 13, 2019, and ordered the temporary arrangement to remain in place until the court issued its decision.

[¶6] On July 24, 2020, the district court issued its decision letter. The Court issued its final order on October 2, 2020. Mother appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶7] Child custody and visitation are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Bruce v. Bruce , 2021 WY 38, ¶ 12, 482 P.3d 328, 332 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Edwards v. Edwards , 2020 WY 35, ¶ 10, 459 P.3d 448, 450 (Wyo. 2020) ). "A district court does not abuse its discretion if it could reasonably conclude as it did." Sears v. Sears , 2021 WY 20, ¶ 13, 479 P.3d 767, 772 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Johnson v. Clifford , 2018 WY 59, ¶ 8, 418 P.3d 819, 822 (Wyo. 2018) ). We review the record to determine if sufficient evidence supports "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." Bruce , 2021 WY 38, ¶ 12, 482 P.3d at 332 (quoting Edwards , 2020 WY 35, ¶ 10, 459 P.3d at 450 ). We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. Meiners v. Meiners , 2019 WY 39, ¶ 8, 438 P.3d 1260, 1266 (Wyo. 2019). "Interpretation of court rules is a question of law we review de novo." Gas Sensing Tech. Corp. v. New Horizon Ventures Pty Ltd as Tr. of Linklater Fam. Tr. , 2020 WY 114, ¶ 25, 471 P.3d 294, 299 (Wyo. 2020).

DISCUSSION

[¶8] Mother complains of the district court's unreasonable delay in resolving the custody dispute, she contends the district court's order is inadequate under W.R.C.P. 52, and she argues the district court abused its discretion when it ordered shared custody. The district court's delay in deciding this matter is certainly troubling, but it is not grounds for reversal. We reverse because the district court's Rule 52(a)(1)(A) findings are insufficient to support its conclusion that shared custody was in the child's best interest in light of the testimony of CP's counselor and the district court's misunderstanding of the law regarding shared custody.

I. The District Court's Delay in Issuing the Final Order Is Not Reversible Error

[¶9] Mother argues the district court committed reversible error when it delayed ten months and twenty days before issuing its decision letter, and thirteen months before issuing its final order.¹ Mother argues this delay violated Rule 902 of the Uniform Rules for District Courts which states: "All civil matters taken under advisement by the court shall be decided with dispatch. A judge shall give priority over other court business to resolution of any matter subject to delay hereunder, and if necessary will call in another judge to assist." U.R.D.C. 902. While the rule is sound advice to courts, it lacks both a firm standard ("dispatch" is undefined), or a sanction. Compare W.R.Cr.P. 48(b)(5) ("Any criminal case not tried or continued as provided in this rule shall be dismissed 180 days after arraignment."). Although in a different context, we have noted a particular concern when courts delay matters involving children.

In the Int. of L-MHB , 2017 WY 110, ¶¶ 30-31, 401 P.3d 949, 959 (Wyo. 2017). But, in these circumstances, reversal for inordinate delay would only extend the proceeding and would not serve the purpose of expeditiously resolving cases. The district court's delay is not a basis for reversal.

II. The Rule 52(a)(1)(A) Findings Are Insufficient to Support the District Court's Order

[¶10] Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1)(A) requires the district court, upon request of the parties, to issue special findings of fact separately from its conclusions of law. The purpose of Rule 52(a) is "to indicate the factual basis for the decision on the contested matters." O's Gold Seed Co. v. United Agri-Products Fin. Servs., Inc. , 761 P.2d 673, 676 (Wyo. 1988). In child custody cases, even when Rule 52(a)(1)(A) findings have not been requested, we have "encourage[d] district courts to place on the record the facts crucial to their child custody decisions." Kimzey v. Kimzey, 2020 WY 52, ¶ 38 n.2, 461 P.3d 1229, 1241 n.2 (Wyo. 2020).

To play fair, a trial judge relying on discretionary power should place on record the circumstances and factors that were crucial to his determination. He should spell out his reasons as well as he can so that counsel and the reviewing court will know and be in a position to evaluate the soundness of his decision.

Id. (quoting Booth v. Booth , 2019 WY 5, ¶ 22, 432 P.3d 902, 909 (Wyo. 2019) ). We have held that the requested findings do not need to be elaborate, but "need only be clear, specific and complete in concise language informing the appellate court of the underlying bases for the trial court's decision." O's Gold , 761 P.2d at 676 (quoting Whitefoot v. Hanover Ins. Co. , 561 P.2d 717, 720 (Wyo. 1977) ).

[¶11] We set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the district court's order in their entirety:

1.) Courts have wide discretion in "fashioning custody and visitation provisions for the best interests of the children." Bruegman v. Bruegman , 2018 WY 49, ¶ 11, 417 P.3d 157, 161 (Wyo. 2018).

2.) The trial court's decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id.

3.) The best interests of the child is the most important matter for the Court to consider in making a custody determination. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201.

4.) In making the determination, the Court shall consider the following factors:

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 competence 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, includ[ing] the right to privacy;

viii.) Geographic

...