In the matter of ARF, a minor child: JKS v. AHF
2013 WY 97
| Wyo. | 2013Background
- Father (JKS) sought paternity and custody of his daughter ARF (born 2004); Mother (AHF) admitted paternity but contested custody. Trial was one day.
- District court awarded custody to Mother, set visitation for Father, ordered current child support of $465/month and found Father owed $24,482 in arrears with $100/month payment toward arrears.
- Father appealed custody award, the calculation of child support arrears, and a 160‑minute per‑party time limit imposed for the one‑day trial.
- Central factual dispute: Mother’s live‑in fiancé has prior convictions for sexual offenses against minors; experts and parole/counseling records indicated rehabilitation and low risk of reoffense.
- Record showed Mother had primary custody for eight years, stable employment, daycare and school stability for ARF; Father had more variable employment and residences, and some concerns about medication administration when ARF stayed with him.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody: Did court abuse discretion by awarding custody to Mother? | Placement with Mother endangers ARF because her fiancé has prior sexual‑offense convictions; Father can provide safe, stable home. | Mother has been primary caregiver; fiancé has completed parole and treatment; experts say low risk; continuity favors Mother. | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court reasonably credited evidence of fiancé’s rehabilitation and best interests of child. |
| Child support arrears: Did court err in calculating arrearage? | Court adopted mother’s late, un‑admitted calculations without analysis; used joint tax return improperly; order lacks income findings. | (Implicit) Court’s arrearage and monthly support were proper. | Reversed and remanded — order failed to state presumptive child support or incomes as required by statute; remand for compliance. |
| Time limits: Did 160‑minute limit per party deny due process? | Limit was arbitrary, prejudiced Father (petitioner has burden to present background), and was enforced after he used most time. | Time limit was requested by Mother for a one‑day trial; Father did not object beforehand; limits reasonable to manage one‑day setting. | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; limits were reasonable, Father failed to seek more time or object pretrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnott v. Arnott, 293 P.3d 440 (Wyo. 2012) (child custody committed to district court discretion)
- Durfee v. Durfee, 199 P.3d 1087 (Wyo. 2009) (standard for reviewing custody—view evidence favorably to prevailing party)
- Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210 (Wyo. 1995) (district court has broad discretion in setting child support)
- Moss v. Moss, 156 P.3d 316 (Wyo. 2007) (child support order must state presumptive amount and findings or be reversed)
- Jackson Hole Traders, Inc. v. Joseph, 931 P.2d 244 (Wyo. 1997) (trial courts may limit parties to time they said they needed)
- Yoeuth v. State, 206 P.3d 1278 (Wyo. 2009) (credibility and weight of testimony are for trial court)