IC v. DW
2015 WY 135
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Parents conceived a child after a brief relationship; mother returned to Jackson, WY, father lived in Seattle, WA; child born in 2013.
- Father filed to establish paternity, custody, and support; trial occurred July 22–23, 2014.
- District court issued a 21-page decree: joint legal custody, primary physical custody to mother, and visitation for father.
- Court heard witnesses including both parents, family, and father’s experts (a neuropsychologist and a pediatrician).
- Father appealed, arguing the custody award abused discretion and visitation terms were insufficiently detailed.
- Supreme Court affirms custody award but remands for a more detailed visitation plan to satisfy statutory requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether awarding primary physical custody to mother was an abuse of discretion / not in child’s best interests | District court made unsupported findings, misapplied §20-2-201(a) factors, and showed gender bias | Court’s findings are supported; decision rested on statutory factors and evidence (distance, parenting time, bonding) | Affirmed — custody award not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether visitation order lacked sufficient detail under §20-2-202(a)(i) | Visitation terms (monthly, 8-hour days, no overnights until 18 months) are vague and unenforceable | Mother did not defend the sufficiency on appeal | Remanded — visitation plan must be more specific and cover longer term |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Wright, 344 P.3d 267 (Wyo. 2015) (custody/visitation/support decisions committed to trial court discretion)
- Stevens v. Stevens, 318 P.3d 802 (Wyo. 2014) (review standards for custody—best interests and abuse of discretion)
- Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886 (Wyo. 1990) (consideration of family realities in custody determinations)
- Bingham v. Bingham, 167 P.3d 14 (Wyo. 2007) (standards for custody findings and statutory factor application)
- Donnelly v. Donnelly, 92 P.3d 298 (Wyo. 2004) (gender cannot be sole basis for custody award)
- Shindell v. Shindell, 322 P.3d 1270 (Wyo. 2014) (visitation orders must be detailed enough to promote compliance)
- Roemmich v. Roemmich, 238 P.3d 89 (Wyo. 2010) (remand for more specific visitation provisions)
- FML v. TW, 157 P.3d 455 (Wyo. 2007) (visitation detail and enforcement considerations)
- Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen, 297 P.3d 768 (Wyo. 2013) (decrees may require future modification as child and parties’ circumstances change)