Van Fleet v. Guyette

• Decision Date: 19 June 2020
• Docket Number: S-19-0236
• Citation: 466 P.3d 812
• Parties: Boyd Van FLEET, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Marceline A. GUYETTE, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

466 P.3d 812

Boyd Van FLEET, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Marceline A. GUYETTE, Appellee (Defendant).

S-19-0236

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 19, 2020

Representing Appellant: Christopher J. King of APEX Legal, P.C., Worland, Wyoming

Representing Appellee: Elizabeth Greenwood and Inga L. Parsons, Greenwood Law, LLC, Pinedale, Wyoming

Guardian Ad Litem: Thomas P. Keegan of Keegan, Krisjansons & Miles, P.C., Cody, Wyoming

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

DAVIS, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Boyd Van Fleet (Father) and Marceline Guyette (Mother) divorced in 2016, and shortly thereafter Father filed a petition to modify custody of the parties' child. The district court declined jurisdiction over the issue of child custody and ceded jurisdiction to the applicable court in California, the state where Mother and the child reside. Father appeals that ruling, as well as the court's rulings on several other motions. We affirm and award Mother her attorney fees and costs on appeal.

ISSUES

[¶2] Father presents nine issues on appeal, which we summarize and restate as:

1. Did the district court err in denying Father's motion to disallow the guardian ad litem's (GAL's) participation in the post-divorce proceedings and in ordering Father to pay GAL fees incurred in those proceedings?

2. Did the district court err in denying Father's request to have the parties' child interviewed and/or testify at the motions hearing?

3. Did the district court err in allowing Mother to present an affidavit imputing income to Father for purposes of calculating child support?

4. Did the district court err in awarding Mother attorney fees to compensate her for Father's contempt?

5. Did the district court err in awarding Mother post judgment interest on amounts Father was required to pay Mother pursuant to the divorce decree's property division?

6. Did the district court err in ordering forfeiture of a $5,000 bond that the court ordered Father to post to ensure compliance with child visitation terms?

7. Did the district court err in declining jurisdiction over Father's petition to modify custody and in ceding it to a court in California, where Mother and the child reside?

FACTS

A. Entry of Divorce Decree

[¶3] Mother and Father were married in February 2013 and had one child born that same year. In April 2015 Father filed a complaint for divorce, and during the proceedings, the district court appointed a GAL to "act as attorney for the subject child and [ordered that he] shall file such pleadings and participate in the case as necessary to protect the best interests of the subject child."

[¶4] On October 11, 2016, the district court held a hearing on the settlement that the parties had reached on child custody and property division and confirmed their general agreement to those terms. On October 13, 2016, the court held a trial to determine the parties' income and to set child support. During that hearing, the court held Father in contempt for filing a financial affidavit that was inaccurate and omitted certain income, and it ordered that Father would be allowed to purge his contempt by filing a corrected financial affidavit. The court then left the question of child support to be determined.

[¶5] On December 5, 2016, the court entered a Stipulated Judgment and Decree of Divorce. The decree contemplated that Mother would be moving to California with the parties' child and awarded her primary custody with a detailed visitation schedule for Father. Concerning support, the decree ordered:

Child support and temporary support will continue as is until otherwise agreed upon or ordered by the Court. The parties agree child support will be set at the statutory rate with no deviations. If the parties cannot agree on net income figures to calculate child support the parties agree to using the current court dates to present information to the Court and have the Court determine the child support. This issue is deferred for further determination by the Court.

[¶6] With regard to the division of property, the decree ordered Father to pay Mother $55,000 within ninety days and to deliver her wedding ring and band, or alternatively, their cash equivalent of $4,750, within five days of the decree's entry. It further ordered:

[Father] receives everything else, but agrees to provide written FFL documentation that the guns currently registered in [Mother's] name are transferred out of her name within thirty (30) days. He shall also provide documentation that the UZI and black powder revolver are turned over to [Father's attorney] for return to [Mother's father], or delivered to law enforcement for destruction.

B. Post-Decree Proceedings

[¶7] On February 9, 2017, Father filed a petition to modify custody of the parties' child. He alleged that Mother was alienating him from the child and that the parental alienation was a material and substantial change in circumstances. As to the relief sought, he requested:

1. That this Court finds a material and substantial change has occurred to warrant modifying child custody herein;

2. That this Court finds it is in the best interests of the minor child to live primarily with [Father] and that the Court award [Father] sole legal custody and primary residential custody of the minor child.

3. That this Court orders a reasonable visitation schedule for [Mother].

4. That this Court modifies child support due to the change in custody and in accordance with the Wyoming Child Support Guidelines.

[¶8] For nearly two years following Father's filing of his petition, the parties litigated several issues besides the petition, including the GAL's role in the proceedings, child support, contempt motions filed by both parties on orders to show cause, and the proper jurisdiction to hear Father's petition to modify custody.¹ On January 23-24, 2019, the district court held a hearing on the following pending motions:

1) Father's "Motion for Stay of Proceedings and to Have Minor Child Interviewed and for Removal of [GAL] and for Finding of Contempt Against [Mother];"

2) "[Mother's] Third Verified Motion for Order to Show Cause;"²

3) "[Mother's] Rule 54 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Request for Post Judgment Interest;"

4) "[Mother's] Verified Request for Findings and Order of Imputed Income;"

5) "[Mother's] Motion to Forfeit Bond;"

6) "[Mother's] Fourth Motion for Order to Show Cause;"

7) "[Mother's] Fifth Motion for Order to Show Cause;"

8) "[Mother's] Motion for Declination of Jurisdiction on the Basis of Forum Non Conveniens;" and

9) "[Father's] Supplement to Motion for Order to Show Cause Set for Hearing January 23, 2019 or Request for Order to Show Cause."

[¶9] On May 2, 2019, the district court entered three orders from which Father appeals. It entered an "Order After Hearing," which ruled on all pending motions except Mother's motion to transfer jurisdiction and her Rule 54 motion. In that order, the court generally ruled against Father on his motions and in favor of Mother on her motions. The court's second order awarded Mother attorney fees and costs to compensate her for Father's contempt, as well as post judgment interest on amounts Father failed to pay Mother in violation of the divorce decree's property division. The third order stayed proceedings on Father's petition to modify custody, and ceded jurisdiction over the petition to a California court. On May 31, 2019, Father filed a notice of appeal from the three orders.

DISCUSSION

A. GAL's Participation and Fees in Post-Divorce Proceedings

[¶10] On March 28, 2016, the district court entered a Stipulated Order Appointing Guardian Ad Litem, which directed as follows:

The GAL shall act as attorney for the subject child and shall file such pleadings and participate in the case as necessary to protect the best interests of the subject child, including, but not limited to the following matters:

1. Mental or physical examinations of a party or a child;

2. Custody and/or visitation evaluations of experts pursuant to Rule 706, Wyoming Rules of Evidence, or other parties' expert witness evaluations;

3. Temporary orders concerning care, custody, and maintenance of the subject child;

4. Contempt for noncompliance of court orders against a party;

5. Any other pleadings which address the best interests of the subject child; and

6. The GAL shall have no ex parte communication with the Court.

[¶11] Concerning recommendations that the GAL was required to make, the order directed:

A. The GAL shall formulate an independent position after considering all relevant information, including but not limited to, the desires of the subject children, parents, and relatives.

B. The GAL shall avoid appearances of bias or impropriety, but the GAL must form an opinion concerning the subject child's best interests and attempt to persuade the Court to that view.

C. The GAL shall make recommendations to the Court concerning the best interests of the subject child at all custody and disposition proceedings, and said recommendations may address, but not be limited to, the following areas:

1. Disposition of the subject child as appears most expedient and beneficial;

2. Relative competency of the parents;

3. Whether both parents or either parent has shown the ability to act in the best interests of the subject child; if so, a specification of an arrangement that encourages both parents to share in the rights and responsibilities of rearing their child;

4. Whether there is evidence of child abuse, spouse abuse or family violence; if so, a specification of arrangements that best protect the child; and

5. Mechanisms for accessing subject child's school records, activities, teachers and teachers' conferences, as well as medical and dental treatment providers and records.

[¶12] On September 27, 2017, Father filed a motion asking the district court to disqualify the GAL from participation in the custody modification proceedings. In support, he stated, "As this is a new matter and no appointment in the modification by the Court has occurred [the GAL] should...