In Re Paternity of Jwh
2011 WY 66
Wyo.2011Background
- LRD/Mother and DAH/Father dispute custody of their toddler after paternity established in 2009.
- District court awarded Father primary custody; Mother granted visitation with support set for Aug 2010.
- Mother argues she was the primary caregiver and that Father abused Mother; argues statutory factors were misapplied.
- Court notes Father’s work schedule limited his visitation; parties had agreed visitation prior to litigation.
- Court remanded the case for reconsideration of the primary caretaker factor and spousal abuse findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the primary caregiver factor properly weighed against §20-2-201(a) factors? | Mother asserts she was the primary caregiver and that this was not weighed. | Father contends all factors support custody decision and primary caregiver weight is not determinative. | Remand to record weighing of primary caregiver status. |
| Was the relative fitness/competence factor correctly interpreted given DUI/moral conduct? | Mother argues moral fitness should not trump child welfare. | Father contends district court properly weighed fitness; misconduct probative. | No reversible error; weight within court's discretion. |
| Did the court err by considering visitation conduct during pendency when paternity was unsettled? | Mother says Father had no visitation rights prior to adjudication. | Court weighed willingness to foster relationship and future parenting. | No abuse of discretion; issue adequately weighed. |
| Did the court err by failing to address spousal abuse evidence in its record? | Mother says abuse evidence was material and weight should be stated. | Court heard abuse testimony and weighed credibility. | Remand to place findings on spousal abuse. |
| Was it proper to admit unrelated misconduct (DUI/probation) as part of child custodial considerations? | Mother asserts misconduct unrelated to child is irrelevant. | Conduct impacting welfare may be weighed in custody. | Not an abuse of discretion; admissible to welfare analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pahl v. Pahl, 87 P.3d 1250 (Wy. 2004) (guides weighing factors; primary caregiver not controlling)
- Durfee v. Durfee, 199 P.3d 1087 (Wy. 2009) (custody discretion and best interests standard)
- Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428 (Wy. 1998) (abuse of discretion if material factor ignored)
- Stonham v. Widiastuti, 79 P.3d 1188 (Wy. 2003) (paramount consideration to child welfare)
- Fergusson v. Fergusson, 45 P.3d 641 (Wy. 2002) (record should reflect §20-2-201(a) considerations)
- Produit v. Produit, 35 P.3d 1240 (Wy. 2001) (remand possible if factors not patent in record)
- Blakely v. Blakely, 218 P.3d 253 (Wy. 2009) (standard for reviewing custody evidence)
- Raymond v. Raymond, 956 P.2d 329 (Wy. 1998) (primary caregiver factor may be outweighed by other factors)
- Ellison v. Walter, 834 P.2d 680 (Wy. 1992) (retroactive child support considerations; duty from birth)