DJG v. MAP
| Decision Date | 24 October 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-12,94-12 |
| Citation | 883 P.2d 946 |
| Parties | DJG, Appellant (Defendant), v. MAP, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Bert T. Ahlstrom, Jr. and Shelly Kay Flot, Cheyenne, for appellant.
Rocklon L. Edmonds, Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.
DJG (mother) appeals from a trial court order modifying an original decree between the parties with respect to child custody provisions, claiming that the trial court erred in determining that a change in circumstances sufficient to allow modification of the original child custody decree had occurred and that the best interests of the child favored a change in custody.
We affirm.
The mother sets out two issues for our consideration:
I. Did the trial court err in finding and holding that there had occurred a change of circumstances sufficient to allow modification of custody in the case at bar?
II. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding a change of custody met the "best interest" test of the minor child?
The father states the issue as:
I. Whether or not there was an abuse of discretion by the district court in granting full legal custody of [the child] to the Appellee.
A child, AMP, was born to DJG and MAP (father) on April 19, 1984. The mother and father never married, and the child has been in the custody of the mother since birth. The father filed a paternity action in 1985; and, on February 23, 1987, the trial court On July 14, 1992, the father filed a motion to modify the original decree, seeking to change legal custody of the child. The district court commissioner heard the case and concluded that no change of circumstances, sufficient to warrant modification of the original decree respecting custody of the child, had occurred. The father objected to this recommendation; and, on October 1, 1993, the trial court entered an order modifying the original decree, finding that there had been a substantial change in circumstances since the original decree had been entered in 1987. The trial court placed legal custody, care and control of the child with the father and granted visitation rights to the mother. The mother now appeals to this court.
entered the original decree placing legal custody of the child with the mother and granting the father visitation rights.
Modifications of custody and support provisions of a paternity decree are provided by W.S. 14-2-113 (1994), which states in part:
(f) The court has continuing subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enforce or modify a judgment or order made pursuant to W.S. 14-2-101 through 14-2-120. Provisions respecting support may be modified only upon a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances.
The modification of a paternity decree respecting custody of a child under this statute lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
This court will not interfere with the decision of the trial court in child custody questions unless there is a procedural error or unless there is shown to be a clear abuse of discretion. A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances, as is said to mean an error of law committed by the court under the circumstances.
Deen v. Deen, 774 P.2d 621, 622 (Wyo.1989) (citing Fanning v. Fanning, 717 P.2d 346, 349 (Wyo.1986)); see also Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 439, 440 (Wyo.1993). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 (Wyo.1980).
The party seeking modification of the child custody provisions of a court decree has the burden of showing that a change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare has occurred after the entry of the initial decree, that the change warrants modification of the decree, and that the modification will be in the best interests of the children. Goss v. Goss, 780 P.2d 306, 312-13 (Wyo.1989), Ayling v. Ayling, 661 P.2d 1054, 1056 (Wyo.1983). In order to resolve the issue of whether there was a showing of material and substantial change in circumstances, we examine the record to determine whether the trial court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that there was such a change.
Since the initial decree was entered in 1987, many things have occurred in the child's life. The mother has moved the child from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Lander,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watt v. Watt, 96-322
...trial court reasonably could conclude from the evidence that a material and substantial change of circumstances occurred. DJG v. MAP, 883 P.2d 946, 947 (Wyo.1994) (quoting Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 We have applied the abuse of discretion standard to the conclusion of a trial cour......
-
Kidd v. Jacobson
...a change from joint custody to primary custody in one parent justified an order granting visitation to the other parent); DJG v. MAP, 883 P.2d 946, 947-48 (Wyo. 1994) (change in custody and visitation).[¶16] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 2019) governs the best interests analysis......
-
Rogers v. Rogers, 97-142
...child or children. Munoz v. Munoz, 919 P.2d 138, 140 (Wyo.1996); Mulkey-Yelverton v. Blevins, 884 P.2d 41, 44 (Wyo.1994); DJG v. MAP, 883 P.2d 946, 947 (Wyo.1994). See also Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-113(p) (Repl.1994). The paramount consideration of the trial court in arriving at decisions with res......
-
Campbell ex rel. Campbell v. Studer, Inc.
...there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." DJG v. MAP, 883 P.2d 946, 947 (Wyo.1994) (quoting Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 The "requirement of showing a defect is one element common to every products lia......