Paden v. Paden

• Citation: 403 P.3d 135
• Decision Date: 04 October 2017
• Docket Number: S-17-0077.
• Parties: Belle Caroline PADEN, k/n/a Belle Caroline Adams, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Chad Joseph PADEN, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

403 P.3d 135

Belle Caroline PADEN, k/n/a Belle Caroline Adams, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Chad Joseph PADEN, Appellee (Defendant).

S-17-0077.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

October 4, 2017

Representing Appellant: Matthew R. Sorenson, Daly & Sorenson, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: DaNece Day, Lubnau Law Office, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

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

FOX, Justice.

[¶1] Belle Caroline Adams (Mother) and Chad Joseph Paden (Father) divorced and, while they both lived in or near Gillette, Wyoming, shared custody of their daughter, PKP. Mother remarried and announced her intent to relocate to southern Colorado. Father petitioned to modify custody, and both parties sought primary physical custody. The district court found that PKP's best interests were served by Father having primary custody. Mother appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We adopt Mother's statement of the issues:

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it awarded primary physical custody to Father?

2. Did the district court err in admitting TS's letters into evidence?

FACTS

[¶3] The parties were married on April 16, 2011. At the time of their marriage, Mother had two children from previous relationships, one of whom, TS, then eight years old, resided with Mother and Father. During their marriage, the couple had one child, PKP, who was born in December of 2011. Mother and Father divorced on May 28, 2014, and, under their stipulated divorce decree, shared custody of PKP. Mother had PKP on the days when Father worked, and Father had her when he was not working. Father works a rotating schedule of eight days on and six days off, which resulted in a nearly even split of PKP's time between Mother and Father. By all accounts this arrangement was successful.

[¶4] Mother married Don Adams in July of 2014. Mr. Adams has a son, RA, from a previous relationship, who resides with him part time. In addition, Mother and Mr. Adams had an infant son. Mother has an inconsistent relationship with her family, including PKP's maternal grandparents, who were not invited to her wedding or to visit her home. Father is the parent who makes sure PKP's maternal and paternal grandparents are included in her life and are invited to events such as birthday parties. Father was PKP's primary caregiver when she was an infant and Mother underwent breast cancer treatment.

[¶5] On October 22, 2014, Mother filed a notice of change of address, announcing her intent to relocate with TS, PKP, her new husband, and their baby to Mr. Adams' childhood home of Pleasant View, Colorado, an eleven-hour drive from Father's home near Gillette. Shortly thereafter, Father filed a petition to modify custody and support. Mother filed a counterclaim, also seeking modification of custody. The district court held a hearing on July 27, 2016, and subsequently modified custody, giving Father primary physical custody, subject to Mother's reasonable visitation. Mother appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶6] We "review orders modifying custody, visitation and child support for an abuse of discretion ...." Greer v. Greer , 2017 WY 35, ¶ 19, 391 P.3d 1127, 1133 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting Tracy v. Tracy , 2017 WY 17, ¶ 46, 388 P.3d 1257, 1267 (Wyo. 2017) ). Judicial discretion is composed "of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria" and "means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily and capriciously." Aragon v. Aragon , 2005 WY 5, ¶ 7, 104 P.3d 756, 759 (Wyo. 2005). We "will not disturb an order regarding custody or visitation so long as the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Greer , 2017 WY 35, ¶ 19, 391 P.3d at 1133. "We evaluate the reasonableness of a decision in relation to the evidence presented, viewing it in the light most favorable to the district court's determination, affording every favorable inference to the prevailing party, and ignoring any conflicting evidence." Id . (citations omitted).

[¶7] We also review a district court's decision on the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. In re Paternity of HLG , 2016 WY 35, ¶ 7, 368 P.3d 902, 904 (Wyo. 2016). We accord district courts' rulings on the admissibility of evidence considerable deference and will not disturb such rulings on appeal if there is a legitimate basis for the ruling. Id . (citing Wise v. Ludlow , 2015 WY 43, ¶ 42, 346 P.3d 1, 12 (Wyo. 2015) ); Aragon , 2005 WY 5, ¶ 21, 104 P.3d at 762.

DISCUSSION

I. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it awarded primary physical custody to Father?

[¶8] Mother contends that the district court abused its discretion because awarding Father primary physical custody was not in the best interests of PKP. She argues that the district court "erred by not reciting which factor, pursuant to [Wyo. Stat. Ann.] § 20-2-201, it was basing its analysis on," and that the interests of PKP would be best served by Mother having primary physical custody because Mother is a stay-at-home mom in Colorado, and because PKP will not have to be separated from her siblings if Mother has primary custody. Mother further contends that the district court failed to adequately explain its decision to separate PKP from her siblings.

[¶9] When modification of a custody order is sought, the court engages in a two-step analysis. Generally, "the provisions of a divorce decree, including those pertaining to child custody, are subject to the doctrine of res judicata, which bars litigation of issues that were or could have been determined in a prior proceeding." Arnott v. Arnott , 2012 WY 167, ¶ 13, 293 P.3d 440, 444 (Wyo. 2012). However, "application of res judicata to a petition for modification of child custody is not appropriate where there has been a ‘material or substantial change in circumstances' with respect to the initial custody determination." Id . at ¶ 13, 293 P.3d at 444-45 (internal citation omitted). Thus, the first inquiry requires the court to determine whether there has been "a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question ...." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2017). Once such a showing has been made, the court may then consider whether modification would be in the best interests of the children. Arnott , 2012 WY 167, ¶ 14, 293 P.3d at 445. The parties and the district court agreed that Mother's move is a substantial and material change of circumstance, which meant they could no longer share custody of PKP as they had been, especially once PKP started school in the fall of 2017. That allowed the district court to revisit custody and visitation. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c).

[¶10] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 2017) sets forth the following factors for determining the best interests of a child:

(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 competency 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, including the right to privacy;

(viii) Geographic distance between the parents' residences;

(ix) The current physical and mental ability of each parent to care for each child;

(x) Any other factors the court deems necessary and relevant.

[¶11] In addition, we have identified other factors that may inform a determination of best interests of a child when modification of a custody order is sought due to a parent's relocation: "the attributes and characteristics of the parents and children and how the children have fared under the original custody and visitation arrangement, the relocating parent's motives for proposing the move, and whether reasonable visitation is possible for the remaining parent." Arnott , 2012 WY 167, ¶ 33, 293 P.3d at 455 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Depending on the case, different factors will present a greater need for emphasis." Pahl v. Pahl , 2004 WY 40, ¶ 10, 87 P.3d 1250, 1254 (Wyo. 2004). "The one constant" is that "the resolution must be in the best interests of" the child. Id .

[¶12] Mother contends that the district court "erred by not reciting which factor, pursuant to [Wyo. Stat. Ann.] § 20-2-201, it was basing its analysis on." While the district court noted that the parties in this case "stipulated that with the exception of one factor, the factors the Court must consider when determining the best interest of a child resolve themselves with both parents being equally good," we cannot tell from our review of the record or the court's decision letter and order which factor remained for the court's consideration. But although the district court did not explicitly list the statutory factors it considered, its decision letter sufficiently reveals that it thoroughly reviewed the relevant factors when it examined the evidence and determined modification of custody was in PKP's best interests.¹ "Furthermore, failure to explicitly comment on a statutory factor in the district court's opinion letter or order does not necessarily indicate that the court failed to consider that factor." Hayzlett v. Hayzlett , 2007 WY 147, ¶ 10, 167 P.3d 639, 642 (Wyo. 2007).

[¶13] Mother next argues that the district court abused its discretion when it...