Hanson v. Belveal
2012 WY 98
Wyo.2012Background
- Post-divorce petitions: father seeks custody modification to obtain primary custody; district court denies and awards mother $4,680 in fees.
- Relocation clause in stipulation: move out of Wyoming by either party is a material change of circumstances to seek custody modification.
- Mother moved to Idaho in 2009, returned to Wyoming in 2010; father stayed in Daniel, Wyoming; trial held Jan 2011.
- Court ruled relocation clause unconstitutional in substance and independently evaluated material change of circumstances.
- GAL advised CJH is well cared for; district court denied modification; no abuse of discretion in fee award to mother.
- Final: relocation clause invalid as speculative; no material change warranted modification; fees affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of relocation clause | Father argues clause infringes travel/relocation rights. | Mother contends clause not enforceable or waivable; court may assess facts independently. | Clause invalid as speculative; court properly disregarded it. |
| Material change of circumstances | Father asserts multiple changes warrant modification. | Mother contends no substantial change; evidence insufficient. | District court reasonably found no material change. |
| Best interests of the child | Modification would be in CJH’s best interests. | Best interests not satisfied without material change. | Not in CJH’s best interests given lack of material change. |
| Evidentiary rulings | Admission/ exclusion of certain hearsay and records prejudiced Father. | rulings were harmless or supported by record. | No reversible error; any error harmless given overall proof. |
| Attorney's fees | Fees were unjustified as consequences of shock to conscience. | Fees authorized to defend the action; discretion exercised properly. | No abuse of discretion; award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Testerman v. Testerman, 193 P.3d 1141 (Wy. 2008) (parental travel rights; relocation not per se material change)
- Love v. Love, 851 P.2d 1283 (Wy. 1993) (relocation not material change absent legitimate motive or impact)
- Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52 (Wy. 1995) (joint custody workability; grounds for reopening custody)
- Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566 (Wy. 1990) (revisory power based on changes in circumstances; not just invitation to reopen)
- Morris v. Morris, 170 P.3d 86 (Wy. 2007) (modification burden; changes must affect welfare and be substantial)