Jlk v. Mab, 2016 WY 73

Background

Parents (Mother JLK, Father MAB) share alternating weekly custody of their child under a 2015 Custody Order that allows Mother one five‑panel drug test request per calendar month; Father must submit within 24 hours of receiving the request (if facility open); negatives require Mother to reimburse, positives penalize Father with loss of visitation.
Mother sent text requests in April and May 2015; Father received those texts days later, then provided a negative test result for April (taken April 10). CASA refused to permit Father’s April 12 and May 10 visitations because Mother claimed the 24‑hour requirement was not met.
Father filed a show cause motion alleging Mother denied visitation and failed to reimburse him for the April negative test; Mother filed a counter motion alleging Father kept his phone off and otherwise violated the testing provisions.
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Father did not violate the Order, found Mother in civil contempt for willfully violating the Order (denying two weeks of visitation and failing to reimburse the April test), awarded Father two make‑up weeks and reimbursement, and separately awarded attorney fees to Father.
On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the finding that Father did not violate the Order, reversed the contempt finding against Mother (holding insufficient evidence of a willful violation), but nevertheless upheld the district court’s remedial relief (make‑up visitation and reimbursement) because Mother did deprive Father of rights under the Order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father violated the Custody Order’s drug‑testing provisions	Mother: Father kept his phone off to manipulate receipt timing and evade tests	Father: He provided a dedicated phone number, kept it on/charged, and received texts late due to delivery issues	Court: No error—found Father credible; Father did not violate the Order
Whether Mother willfully violated the Custody Order (contempt)	Father: Mother willfully denied visitation and reimbursement despite test results and receipt discrepancies	Mother: She acted without ill intent, reasonably believed Father caused delays, and did not willfully disobey	Court: Reversed contempt finding—Order did not clearly impose duty to verify receipt causes; no clear-and-convincing proof of willfulness
Whether appellate dismissal or sanctions are warranted for Mother’s alleged failure to purge contempt (nonpayment)	Father: Mother didn’t purge contempt (didn’t pay test cost and fees), so dismiss appeal and award sanctions	Mother: Record shows she later reimbursed for subsequent tests; fees order not appealed and should be enforced in district court	Court: Denied dismissal/sanctions; no record of bad‑faith noncompliance sufficient to dismiss appeal
Whether district court’s remedial relief should stand despite reversing contempt	Father: Relief (make‑up visitation, reimbursement, fees) appropriate to remedy violation	Mother: Contempt reversal undermines relief	Court: Upheld remedial relief—district court properly remedied deprivation of visitation and reimbursement even absent contempt finding

Key Cases Cited

Roberts v. Locke, 304 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2013) (standard for overturning contempt in domestic relations: narrow review of abuse of discretion)
Bullock v. Bullock, 336 P.3d 136 (Wyo. 2014) (elements and burden shifting in civil contempt; clear‑and‑convincing evidence requirement)
McAdam v. McAdam, 335 P.3d 466 (Wyo. 2014) (definition of clear and convincing evidence for contempt and elements required)
Shindell v. Shindell, 322 P.3d 1270 (Wyo. 2014) (courts’ authority to enforce domestic orders via contempt)
Greene v. Finn, 153 P.3d 945 (Wyo. 2007) (requirement that orders be "clear, specific and unambiguous" to support contempt)
Jessen v. Jessen, 802 P.2d 901 (Wyo. 1990) (failure to make good‑faith effort to comply with an order may justify dismissal of appeal)