Gjertsen v. Haar
2015 WY 56
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Parents are non‑U.S. citizens with green cards; one child (born 2006). Mother abducted the child to Norway pre‑custody order; Father obtained return under the Hague Convention.
- California stipulated judgment (later registered in Wyoming) awarded Father sole legal and physical custody, established visitation for Mother, required $50,000 security bond and restricted out‑of‑state/foreign travel. Paragraph 27 allowed visitation adjustments based on the child’s best interests "without the necessity of proving a change of circumstances."
- Parents and child relocated to Wyoming; Mother moved to Sheridan in 2011 and initially had supervised visitation, later transitioning to unsupervised visits after bond posted.
- Relations remained acrimonious (recordings, contested exchanges, counseling). A counselor imposed rules that improved the child’s anxiety and exchanges before trial.
- Mother petitioned in Wyoming (2013) to modify custody, visitation, support and bond; district court denied modification for custody/visitation as requiring proof of material change of circumstances and finding none; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had to give full faith and credit to California Paragraph 27 allowing visitation changes on best‑interest alone | Paragraph 27 permits altering visitation based solely on the child’s best interests without showing a material change | Mother waived the argument by not raising it below; if considered, Wyoming should still apply its modification standard | Court: California order must be enforced under full faith and credit/§1738A; Paragraph 27 is effective — visitation may be adjusted on best‑interest without proving material change; remand for best‑interest analysis |
| Whether Mother proved a material and substantial change in circumstances to modify custody | There have been post‑order events (alienation efforts, discipline concerns, alleged abuse mitigated by counseling) sufficient to show material change affecting welfare | Father: Conduct is not ongoing or sufficiently material; past acrimony predates the California order; Mother remains a flight risk; no substantiated ongoing abuse | Court: No abuse of discretion—Mother did not prove a material change of circumstances to reopen custody; custody denial affirmed |
| Whether bond/security and other protective terms should be altered without showing material change | Mother: Bond and travel restrictions are no longer necessary (ties to community, residency, immigration status) | Father: Mother remains a flight risk given past abduction and limited local ties | Court: District court reasonably found Mother remained a flight risk and did not err in maintaining protections (including bond) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Pavey, 158 P.3d 667 (Wyo. 2007) (standard of review for custody modification; abuse of discretion)
- Witowski v. Roosevelt, 199 P.3d 1072 (Wyo. 2009) (Wyoming must enforce another state’s support/custody terms under federal full faith and credit statutes)
- Hanson v. Belveal, 280 P.3d 1186 (Wyo. 2012) (two‑step modification analysis: material change threshold then best interests)
- Zupan v. Zupan, 230 P.3d 329 (Wyo. 2010) (district court may adjust visitation though it declines to change custody)
- Inman v. Williams, 205 P.3d 185 (Wyo. 2009) (visitation flexibility recognized even when custody unchanged)
- Quenzer v. Quenzer, 653 P.2d 295 (Wyo. 1982) (primacy of federal full faith and credit over state uniform acts)