Meehan-Greer v. Greer

• Decision Date: 13 April 2018
• Docket Number: S-17-0198
• Citation: 415 P.3d 274
• Parties: Michelle L. MEEHAN–GREER, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Robert S. GREER, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

415 P.3d 274

Michelle L. MEEHAN–GREER, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Robert S. GREER, Appellee (Defendant).

S-17-0198

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

April 13, 2018

Representing Appellant: Rhonda S. Woodard of Wolf, Tiedeken & Woodard, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; Christopher R. Ringer of Ringer Law, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Jill Deann LaRance, Billings, Montana.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL^* , DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant Michelle L. Meehan–Greer (Mother) appeals from the district court's order granting Appellee Robert S. Greer's (Father) petition to modify their divorce decree. Mother claims the district court abused its discretion by modifying the decree to extend Father's summer visitation, ordering her to pay a larger share of the children's medical expenses, and allowing Father to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes every other year.

[¶ 2] We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] Mother presents four issues on appeal:

1. Was there a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the children which allowed the district court to reopen the Divorce Decree and modify visitation?

2. If a material change in circumstances was proven, did the district court abuse its discretion when it awarded [Father] the summer visitation set forth in the Order ?

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it modified the division of the children's uncovered medical expenses?

4. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it reallocated the dependent tax exemption?

Father concedes the district court erred by reallocating the dependent tax exemption, but rephrases the other issues as follows:

1. In view of the fact that the decree failed to provide for any holiday visitation, vacation time and/or extended summer visitation, and in view of the fact the lack of a set schedule was a source of ongoing conflict between the parents that clearly affected the children, was the district court's finding that there had been a material change in circumstances such that it should modify the decree[,] not to change custody[,] but to more clearly identify the dates for Father's visitation an abuse of discretion?

2. In view of the district court's ability to view the witnesses and judge the credibility of the parties, and in view of the children's need for certainty and consistency, was the district court's decision to modify the decree to more clearly identify the dates for Father's visitation in the children's best interests?

3. In view of the huge disparity in income between the parties, and in view of the fact that Mother did not object to the district court's modification to the child support award, was the district court's decision to order Mother to pay 75% of the unreimbursed medical expenses an abuse of discretion?

FACTS

[¶ 4] Mother and Father married in June 2000 and had three children—MG, born in 2004; WG, born in 2007; and GG, born in 2009. The parties divorced in 2013. They entered into a settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the stipulated divorce decree. They agreed they would have joint legal custody of the children, Mother would have primary custody, and Father would be entitled to visitation with the children every other weekend, one non-specified evening per week during the school year, and two non-specified weeknights during the summer. Holiday visitation was not addressed in the decree.

[¶ 5] Mother, a dentist, earned significantly more money than Father, a finish carpenter. Father's presumptive child support was $570 per month, but the parties agreed to deviate downward to a $0 monthly child support obligation. In return, Father agreed to pay half of some of the children's expenses, including their private school tuition, school supplies, camps, sport and school activities, and child care. The decree required Mother to provide health insurance for the children and the parties to share non-covered medical expenses equally. It also gave Mother the right to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes every year.

[¶ 6] The parties initially worked together to arrange visitation. With regard to child support, Mother provided monthly bills to Father for his share of the children's expenses. The amount of the bills fluctuated, with his half of the expenses for some months being thousands of dollars. Mother included expenses in her bills that did not fit the list of shared expenses in the divorce decree. For example, her bills included dog food, haircuts, Halloween supplies, and snacks. Father did not pay the monthly bills; instead, he would occasionally provide lump sum payments of child support.

[¶ 7] After a time, the parties began to quarrel over visitation and their respective parenting styles. Father retained counsel who sent a letter to Mother's attorney on November 19, 2015, proposing a new visitation schedule. On January 28, 2016, Mother's attorney sent a letter to Father's attorney alleging Father had exposed the children to pornography and physically abused them. It notified Father that Sheridan County Department of Family Services (DFS) was investigating the allegations. Although Mother had told Father the day before (January 27, 2016) that she was taking the children to counseling, she did not inform him of the allegations or the investigation.

[¶ 8] Father met with representatives of the sheriff's department and DFS to discuss the allegations on Friday, January 29, 2016. The three children were also interviewed by the authorities. The eldest child explained that Father had exposed him to pornography by discussing sexual matters with him using graphic language and Father had watched a "rape" movie in the children's presence. All three children described instances where Father had hit them. They also told the authorities Mother had discussed Father's alleged abusive actions with them the night before the interviews. No abuse charges were filed against Father.

[¶ 9] Father filed a petition for modification of visitation and child support on February 12, 2016. On March 18, 2016, Mother filed a motion for an order to show cause asserting Father should be held in contempt of court for violating the decree by: 1) exposing the eldest child to pornography; 2) making disparaging remarks about her; 3) missing the children's school and sporting events; 4) failing to disclose his plans for travelling with the children; 5) not paying child support; and 6) damaging the shop awarded to her in the divorce.

[¶ 10] On November 2, 2016, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on Father's petition to modify the decree and Mother's contempt motion. Mother did not object to Father's request that the child support order be reopened and an order entered requiring him to pay the presumptive child support amount which, based upon the parties' incomes at the time of the hearing, was $560 per month. Father also requested that the children's medical expenses not covered by insurance be split between the parties in accordance with their respective incomes—82% to be paid by Mother and 18% to be paid by Father. Father did not request any change to the provision of the decree which allowed Mother to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes each year.

[¶ 11] With regard to visitation, Father asked for 45 days in the summer—15 consecutive days per month in June, July and August. He also requested a set holiday visitation schedule. Mother asserted Father had not established there had been a material change of circumstances since entry of the decree which would justify reopening the visitation provisions. She also claimed that revision of visitation was not in the children's best interests.

[¶ 12] The district court issued its Order Establishing Custody, Visitation and Child Support over six months later, on May 18, 2017. The court ordered Father to pay the presumptive child support amount—$560 per month. It also ruled that, in light of Mother's higher income, she would pay 75% of the children's non-covered medical expenses, while Father would pay the remaining 25% of the expenses, and gave each party the right to claim the children as dependents for tax purposes every other year.

[¶ 13] The district court found that Father had shown a material change in circumstances to justify reopening the visitation portion of the decree. It ordered that during the school year, Father would continue to get visitation with the children on alternating weekends but would not have the non-specified evening during the week that was part of the decree. The district court granted Father extended summer visitation with the children from one week after school ended in the spring until one week before school resumed in the fall, and set out specific holiday visitation. The district court also ruled that Mother had failed to meet her burden of showing Father should be held in contempt of court.¹ Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 14] We review the district court's order by applying the abuse of discretion standard of review.

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). It has been our consistent principle that in custody matters, the welfare and needs of the children are to be given paramount consideration. Scherer, 931 P.2d at 254 ; Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886, 890 (Wyo.1990) ; see also Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52, 55 (Wyo.1995) ; and Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34, 36 (Wyo.1984).... "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, 685 P.2d at 36.

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.19

...