In the Matter of the Guardianship of Mkh, Minor Child. Brenda Clark v. Aaron Huffer, 2016 WY 103

Brenda Clark (grandmother) filed a petition (Feb 23, 2005) to be guardian of her unborn granddaughter, requesting the guardianship take effect at birth; both parents consented.
The district court entered an Order Appointing Guardian on March 2, 2005 that made the guardianship effective immediately (before birth).
Baby H was born March 21, 2005 and named MKH. Disputes over guardianship followed; a guardian ad litem was appointed and later recommended Clark as guardian.
On May 3, 2006 the court entered an Order Extending Guardianship with fresh findings and detailed powers/duties for Clark.
In 2014–2015 father challenged the 2005 order as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it named a guardian before the child’s birth; the district court granted relief, declaring both the 2005 and 2006 orders void. Clark appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Clark)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction in March 2005 to appoint a guardian for an unborn child	The court had authority to act on the petition and could appoint a guardian to take effect at birth; alternatively, the 2006 order ratified any prior action	Court lacked jurisdiction because Wyoming statutes define “minor” as an individual under age 18 and do not include unborn children, so a guardian cannot be appointed pre-birth	Court: Statutes do not authorize guardians for unborn children; appointment pre-birth was unauthorized (statutory error)
Whether the 2005 order was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (and thus the 2006 order also invalid)	Even if 2005 order was flawed, the court had an arguable basis to act; the 2006 Order Extending Guardianship constituted a new valid exercise of jurisdiction and should stand	2005 order void ab initio for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; thus later orders cannot ratify a void act	Court: 2005 order was an error in effective date, not a jurisdictional usurpation; district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the guardianship petition, and the 2006 order is valid and remains in effect

Velasquez v. Chamberlain, 209 P.3d 888 (Wyo. 2009) (explaining ratification as an agency concept)
Linch v. Linch, 361 P.3d 308 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for when a judgment is void and discussion of Rule 60(b)(4))
In re Guardianship of MEO, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006) (guardianship matters controlled exclusively by statute)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (U.S. 2010) (void-judgment doctrine and rare instances of total want of jurisdiction)
Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58 (2d Cir. 1986) (judgment void only when court lacked even an arguable basis for jurisdiction)