Kimberly Shindell v. Roger Shindell
2014 WY 51
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Parents divorced in 2004; Mother awarded primary custody in Jackson, WY; Father (in Indiana) retained visitation and communication rights under detailed court orders.
- Over years Father repeatedly sought enforcement; Mother repeatedly failed to facilitate communication, enrollment notifications, cooperation with guardian ad litem, and transport/arrange visitation.
- In 2012 Mother refused to send the daughters to Father for spring-break visitation, citing older child’s allergies/asthma from Father’s pets; Father had previously purchased tickets.
- Father filed a verified motion for an order to show cause (contempt). At hearing Mother admitted not sending the children but relied on health concerns; evidence showed Father and his wife had taken steps to mitigate pet exposure.
- District court found Mother in indirect civil contempt, ordered remedial and coercive sanctions including expanded visitation, payment of specified plane tickets, unfettered communication, a $10,000 bond if she again prevented court-ordered visitation, and payment of Father’s attorney and guardian ad litem fees. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether district court erred in finding Mother in indirect civil contempt | Mother: Father failed to prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence | Father: Evidence established existence, notice, and willful disobedience of orders | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported contempt (order existence, knowledge, disobedience) |
| 2. Whether court abused discretion by ordering Mother to pay all travel-related costs for visits | Mother: Court abused discretion / she cannot afford full travel costs | Father: Order limited to specific interim requirement (winter break and spring break tickets) and reasonable as sanction/compensation | Affirmed: district court within discretion to order payment for specific travel costs as sanction; no record support for inability-to-pay claim |
| 3. Whether court erred by requiring Mother to post $10,000 bond if she interferes with visitation | Mother: Bond should be limited to noncustodial parent to guarantee return of children | Father: Bond is proper security to deter and compensate for further interference | Affirmed: bond within court’s discretion to ensure compliance and provide security for aggrieved parent |
| 4. Whether court erred by ordering Mother to pay Father’s attorney’s fees and costs | Mother: Fees recoverable only under §20-2-111 for carrying on/defending action | Father: Fees recoverable under contempt/enforcement statutes and Rule 42.1 | Affirmed: court had statutory and rule-based authority to award fees in contempt enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Locke, 304 P.3d 116 (Wyo. 2013) (standard of review for contempt in domestic relations cases)
- Walker v. Walker, 311 P.3d 170 (Wyo. 2013) (courts’ authority to enforce orders via contempt)
- Inman v. Williams, 205 P.3d 185 (Wyo. 2009) (allocation of travel costs for visitation is fact-specific)
- Marquiss v. Marquiss, 837 P.2d 25 (Wyo. 1992) (custodial parent ordered to pay transport costs as sanction)
- United States v. Ford, 514 F.3d 1047 (10th Cir. 2008) (elements of civil contempt)
- Stonham v. Widiastuti, 79 P.3d 1188 (Wyo. 2003) (bond-posting requirement within district court discretion in custody/visitation matters)
- Leitner v. Lonabaugh, 402 P.2d 713 (Wyo. 1965) (custodial parent bond to discourage interference with visitation)
- Moore v. Moore, 809 P.2d 255 (Wyo. 1991) (district court may enforce decree during pendency of appeal)