Munoz v. Munoz, 95-241

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Citation: 919 P.2d 138
• Docket Number: No. 95-241,95-241
• Parties: Rodolpho P. MUNOZ, a/k/a Rudy Munoz, Appellant (Petitioner), v. Tencil G. MUNOZ, Appellee (Respondent).
• Decision Date: 03 July 1996

Page 138

919 P.2d 138 Rodolpho P. MUNOZ, a/k/a Rudy Munoz, Appellant (Petitioner),
v.
Tencil G. MUNOZ, Appellee (Respondent). No. 95-241. Supreme Court of Wyoming. July 3, 1996.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 6, 1996.

Rodolpho P. Munoz, pro se.

No appearance for Appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR, and LEHMAN, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

The sole issue for the court to address in this case is whether Rodolpho P. Munoz, a/k/a Rudy Munoz, (Munoz) has sustained his burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion

Page 139

by the trial court in dismissing his Petition for Modification of Child Custody Agreement. The district court ruled the issues raised by the petition were rendered moot by a subsequent order, which was appealed to this court and affirmed, and Munoz' petition was dismissed. The record on appeal is woefully inadequate for the purpose of supporting any abuse of discretion by the district court. The appellant's brief fails to present a cogent argument on the issue, and we hold there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. The Order on Petition for Change of Custody, entered in the district court on July 25, 1995, is affirmed.

As stated by Munoz in his Brief of Appellant, filed pro se, the issue before this court is:

Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Rudy Munoz fundamental rights as to care, companionship, custody and management of his children which have been presistenly [sic] evaded and abstructed [sic] by Tencil G. Munoz?

There was no brief filed by the nominal appellee, Tencil Geraldine Munoz, or by the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the children in the district court.

The record in this case does not inform the court of any facts. It encompasses a Motion to Show Just Cause why Mrs. Munoz should not be held in contempt of court for violation of the divorce decree as to the care, custody, visitation, and maintenance of the children. Attached to that was a Memorandum in Support of Petition for Modification of Child Custody Agreement and Motion to Show Just Cause. This is followed by an Amended Motion to Show Just Cause. There is an Order on Petition for Change of Custody; an Order on Motion to Show Just Cause; an Order to Strike; and the Notice of Appeal appealing from the Order to Strike, the Order on Petition for Change of Custody, and the Order on Motion to Show Just Cause. Additional background can be found in documentation attached to Munoz' brief from which it appears Munoz and Mrs. Munoz were divorced in 1981. At that time, there were three minor children as to whom the wife was granted custody, pursuant to a property settlement and child custody agreement. Munoz was required to pay $250 a month in child support, and he was granted "reasonable visitation privileges with the above-named minor children as long as the said monthly payment for their care and support is kept current."

Subsequently, another child was born, and the resolution of the child's paternity and custody is summarized in RM v. State, Dep't of Family Services, Div. of Pub. Services, 891 P.2d 791 (Wyo.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 149, 133 L.Ed.2d 94 (1995). We there affirmed the district court's determination that Munoz was the presumed father of the child, because the child was conceived while Munoz was married to the mother, and the birth occurred within 300 days...