ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98

Parents unmarried; son was 3. After prolonged litigation they entered a stipulated custody/visitation order (March 31, 2014) with Father as custodial parent and defined visitation for Mother.
Father filed a Petition to Modify Visitation and Motion for Contempt (Sept. 4, 2015), alleging Mother dressed the child as a girl, drove with him while her license was suspended, and failed to pay child support; requested supervised visitation, injunctions, and contempt relief.
Mother did not respond; default entered. Judge Campbell (sitting in Cheyenne) set an hour-and-a-half telephonic hearing on all pending motions for Dec. 4, 2015. Mother did not appear; Father presented testimony including the child’s counselor; no court reporter recorded the hearing.
District court (Dec. 31, 2015) found Mother willfully failed to pay child support and granted contempt relief (ordered arrearage payments and attorney fees) but denied Father’s request to modify visitation, concluding Father failed to show a material change in circumstances.
Court relied in part on counselor testimony that counseling was addressing the child’s anxiety and that parental litigation may contribute to anxiety; court found the counselor’s opinion insufficient, unexplained by other causes, or not dispositive of a material change in welfare.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying petition to modify visitation for lack of material change	Father: counselor testified dressing as girl caused anxiety and recommended supervised visitation; this establishes material change and risk to child	Mother: (implicit) existing order and counseling address issue; no sufficient change shown affecting child’s welfare	Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence insufficient to show material change affecting welfare; denial affirmed
Whether hearing procedure (notice, 1.5-hr time limit, telephonic) violated due process	Father: insufficient notice that petition would be heard, too little time, and telephone format impaired ability to present case	Court: Notice ("all pending motions" set 30 days out) and time were adequate; Father did not timely object or identify missing evidence; telephone hearing permitted and no prejudice shown	Court: No abuse of discretion; no due process violation

Gjertsen v. Haar, 347 P.3d 1117 (Wyo. 2015) (explains two-step test: material change threshold then best interests analysis)
Kobos By and Through Kobos v. Everts, 768 P.2d 534 (Wyo. 1989) (trier of fact need not accept expert testimony; weight is for the factfinder)
Lopez v. Lopez, 116 P.3d 1098 (Wyo. 2005) (appellate court will not substitute its judgment for trial court’s custody/visitation determinations)
In re ARF, 307 P.3d 852 (Wyo. 2013) (due process in family proceedings requires notice and opportunity to be heard appropriate to the case)