Harignordoquy v. Barlow

Decision Date10 December 2013
Docket NumberNo. S–13–0076.,S–13–0076.
PartiesChristopher HARIGNORDOQUY, Appellant (Defendant), v. Lee Ann BARLOW, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Representing Appellant: Christopher Harignordoquy, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Lea Kuvinka of Kuvinka & Kuvinka, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming.

Before KITE, C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶ 1] The parties to this appeal were divorced in the District Court for the Ninth Judicial District (Teton County). Appellant Christopher Harignordoquy contends that the district court erred in exercising child custody jurisdiction, in the determination as to whether his children might be entitled to possible dual citizenship as that finding might relate to child custody, in requiring a bond to permit visitation and limiting visitation to Teton County, and in other respects. Finding no error, we affirm. We also find no reasonable cause for the appeal, and therefore assess Appellee's costs, attorney fees and damages against Appellant as provided in Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.05.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Did Wyoming have home state jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act so as to permit the district court to make a custody determination?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in its custody and visitation decision because it found it unlikely that the parties' children would obtain dual French citizenship if it awarded Appellant custody or increased visitation?

3. Are any of Appellant's other arguments adequately supported by pertinent authority or cogent argument so as to permit review?

4. Is Appellee entitled to an award of sanctions under Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.05?

FACTS

[¶ 3] Christopher Harignordoquy and Lee Ann Barlow were married in Teton County in October of 2002. Ms. Barlow is a United States citizen. Mr. Harignordoquy is a citizen of both France and the United States. The parties executed a prenuptial agreement before they married.

[¶ 4] The couple decided to have children and arranged a surrogate pregnancy, the details of which need not be discussed here. Twins were born to a surrogate mother in Colorado in late August of 2010. The parties returned to Teton County with the twins on September 7, 2010, and Ms. Barlow and the children have since remained there.

[¶ 5] On March 1, 2011, Ms. Barlow petitioned the Teton County circuit court for a domestic violence protection order against Mr. Harignordoquy. She claimed that he pushed her to the ground and threatened her. The circuit court issued the requested order, which awarded Ms. Barlow temporary custody of the twins and temporary possession of the family residence. Ms. Barlow filed for divorce in the Teton County district court on March 11, 2011. Mr. Harignordoquy moved to France in April of 2011 and has resided there since.

[¶ 6] Ms. Barlow filed a motion for partial summary judgment which sought to have the prenuptial agreement declared valid and enforceable. Mr. Harignordoquy filed a pro se objection, claiming that Barlow was concealing marital assets, which evidently meant that he originally intended to contest the validity of the agreement. However, he later told the district court that he would not in fact contest the prenuptial agreement, and it therefore entered an order finding the prenuptial agreement valid and enforceable.

[¶ 7] Mr. Harignordoquy then filed a motion to disqualify the district judge and guardian ad litem (“GAL”) in August of 2011. He claimed that the judge had improper connections with the Barlow family, and that the GAL was biased because he worked with a friend of Ms. Barlow's at Central Wyoming College's outreach campus in Jackson. He also titled the motion an interlocutory appeal, but it was never filed or docketed in this Court.

[¶ 8] The district judge entered an order denying the motion to disqualify him because Mr. Harignordoquy failed to support it with the required affidavits. SeeW.R.C.P. 40.1(b)(2) (motion for disqualification of district judge “shall be supported by an affidavit or affIdavits)” The district judge stated that he was “not ... prejudiced for or against any party in the matter,” and the GAL also denied any connections with the Barlow family. The court therefore denied the motion. It also ordered Mr. Harignordoquy to refrain from further threats, personal attacks, and uncivil conduct. No transcript of the hearing on the motion is available in the record on appeal, although it was apparently reported.

[¶ 9] The divorce trial took place in November of 2012. Mr. Harignordoquy appeared by video teleconference from France, representing himself. These proceedings were reported but not transcribed, and we must therefore rely upon the decree of divorce to determine what occurred in the trial.

[¶ 10] The court entered the decree on March 13, 2013. Because it had previously ruled that the prenuptial agreement was enforceable based on Mr. Harignordoquy's concession that it was, it divided the parties' property in accordance with that agreement. The court awarded Ms. Barlow sole custody of the children. It noted that Mr. Harignordoquy testified that he would find “some way to free them [the children],” which it found to be a threat to remove the children from this country. It therefore allowed Mr. Harignordoquy up to six weeks of visitation per year to be exercised only in Teton County, and provided in the decree that visitation can only be exercised if he posts a $25,000 bond and surrenders all of his passports. It ordered him to pay $474 in monthly child support.

[¶ 11] Throughout the district court proceedings, Mr. Harignordoquy claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy between Ms. Barlow's family and the judiciary. The court reiterated that it was “not prejudiced for or against any party in this case, and that [Mr. Harignordoquy's] assertions of conspiratorial prejudice lack any basis in fact or evidence.” This appeal was timely perfected.

DISCUSSION
Child Custody Proceedings

[¶ 12] Mr. Harignordoquy first claims that Wyoming did not have “home state” jurisdiction for child custody under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). He argues that the action commenced when Ms. Barlow petitioned the circuit court for a protective order on March 1, 2011, which was less than six months after the parties returned to Teton County on September 7, 2010. He contends that there was no emergency child custody jurisdiction because he denied perpetrating any domestic violence. He also contends that Ms. Barlow manipulated the circuit court proceedings, and claims that the parties signed an agreement making Colorado their home.

[¶ 13] The UCCJEA governs subject matter jurisdiction when a Wyoming court is presented with a child custody proceeding in which the courts of another state may also have jurisdiction. In re NC, 2013 WY 2, ¶¶ 25–26, 294 P.3d 866, 873 (Wyo.2013). It expresses a “fundamental jurisdictional concept that the child's ‘home state’ should have preeminent authority to determine custody and visitation and that authority should be respected elsewhere.” Id. at ¶ 28 (quoting NMC v. JLW ex rel. NAW, 2004 WY 56, ¶ 13, 90 P.3d 93, 97 (Wyo.2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A child's home state is the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.” SeeWyo. Stat. Ann. § 20–5–202(a)(vii) (LexisNexis 2013).

[¶ 14] The district court found that Mr. Harignordoquy consented to the circuit court's jurisdiction, and it noted that the circuit court domestic violence action was completely separate from the divorce proceedings. The court also found that the parties never ceased to reside in Wyoming for UCCJEA purposes. They were in Colorado only for the birth of their children and associated medical care. The court further noted that Ms. Barlow filed for divorce on March 11, 2011, which was slightly more than six months after the parties returned to Wyoming on September 7, 2010. It concluded that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the children.

[¶ 15] The principal purposes of the UCCJEA are to resolve jurisdictional disputes and avoid the inconsistent child custody orders between the courts of this and other states. SeeWyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20–5–306 through 308 (LexisNexis 2013) (providing for consultation between courts with duplicative custody litigation pending, forum non conveniens criteria, and a specification of conduct which justifies declining jurisdiction under the Act); see also NC, ¶ 23, 294 P.3d at 872. There is no indication that Mr. Harnignordoquy initiated child custody proceedings in Colorado, and so there were no competing proceedings which would have required a determination of a proper forum between competing alternatives.

[¶ 16] We ordinarily review a district court's decision regarding jurisdiction in child custody matters de novo. Prickett v. Prickett, 2007 WY 153, ¶ 9, 167 P.3d 661, 663 (Wyo.2007) (citing Ritter v. Ritter, 989 P.2d 109, 111 (Wyo.1999)); see alsoNC, ¶ 20, 294 P.3d at 872. In some cases, the identification of the home state under the UCCJEA requires the trial court to determine where a child has resided, and for how long. We review a district court's findings of fact using a clearly erroneous standard. Redland v. Redland, 2012 WY 148, ¶ 48, 288 P.3d 1173, 1185 (Wyo.2012) (citation omitted); see also Davis v. Gill, 2007 WY 17, ¶¶ 5–8, 150 P.3d 1181, 1182–83 (Wyo.2007) (jurisdictional review under the UCCJEA's predecessor requires review of a district court's factual findings for clear error).

[¶ 17] However, [i]f an appellant intends to assert on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or contrary to the evidence, appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion.” W.R.A.P. 3.02(b). Failure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Bernardino Cnty. Children v. D.S. (In re J.W.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 2020
    ...(2008) 117 Ohio St.3d 241, 883 N.E.2d 420 (per curiam); Rosen v. Rosen (W.Va. 2008) 222 W.Va. 402, 664 S.E.2d 743 ; Harignordoquy v. Barlow (Wyo. 2013) 313 P.3d 1265.) Looked at loosely, these items suggest we should construe the UCCJEA as governing fundamental jurisdiction, particularly if......
  • Motzko Co. v. A&D Oilfield Dozers, Inc.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 15, 2014
    ...and/or cite to the record in accordance with our rules of appellate procedure. Harignordoquy v. Barlow, 2013 WY 149, ¶ 28, 313 P.3d 1265, 1272 (Wyo.2013). In this case, Motzko did not include proper citations to the record in its appellate brief and did not present cogent argument or pertin......
  • In re A.W.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • April 11, 2014
    ...for clear error. Pahnke v. Pahnke, 2014 VT 2, ¶ 17, 195 Vt. ––––, 88 A.3d 432, see also Harignordoquy v. Barlow, 2013 WY 149, ¶ 16, 313 P.3d 1265 (noting that while trial court's jurisdictional ruling under the UCCJEA is reviewed de novo, its underlying factual findings are reviewed for cle......
  • Bates v. Chi. Lumber Co. of Omaha
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 9, 2016
    ...in the judgment, and that it was reasonably based on competent evidence. Harignordoquy v. Barlow , 2013 WY 149, ¶ 17, 313 P.3d 1265, 1269 (Wyo. 2013) ; see also Tyler J. Garrett, Anatomy of a Wyoming Appeal: A Practitioner's Guide for Civil Cases , 16 Wyo. L. Rev. 139, 155 (2016). Nonethele......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT