Renee Michelle Tracy, n/k/a Renee Michelle Buchli v. Shane Elwood Tracy
2017 WY 17
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Parents divorced in 2013; Mother retained custody and children were to attend Meadowlark School in Sheridan.
- Mother planned and then moved with children to Gillette in August 2015 to live with a boyfriend (later husband); Father filed to modify custody and sought temporary custody.
- After the move was announced and carried out, both children developed significant emotional/behavioral problems; they began therapy with counselor Deiadra Smidt in Sheridan.
- District court held a limited, non‑evidentiary temporary custody hearing (≈1 hour) and, based on offers of proof and the children’s therapeutic needs and schooling continuity, granted Father temporary custody pending a full trial set for Feb. 2016.
- Smidt was disclosed as a treating counselor/expert; Mother objected to the scope of disclosure under W.R.C.P. 26(a)(2). The court permitted Smidt to testify only to observations and opinions reflected in her treatment records.
- After a full evidentiary hearing, the court awarded permanent custody to Father, finding the children’s best interests favored Father due to greater stability, structure, and the ongoing therapeutic relationship in Sheridan.
Issues
| Issue | Buchli's Argument (Mother) | Tracy's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of temporary custody order entered after offers of proof (no full evidentiary hearing) | Temporary custody requires a full evidentiary hearing and findings under §20-2-201(a) | Court can enter limited temporary custody based on offers of proof when prompt action is needed and full trial is scheduled | Affirmed: limited non‑evidentiary hearing was permissible given short timeframe, parties’ notice, and prompt full hearing scheduled |
| 2. Admissibility of treating counselor as expert despite incomplete Rule 26 disclosure | Smidt should be excluded for failure to provide full expert report under W.R.C.P.26 | Scheduling order excluded full report requirement for treating providers; records suffice and court may limit testimony to treatment‑based opinions | Affirmed: court properly allowed Smidt to testify limited to observations/opinions in her records under its scheduling order |
| 3. Whether the full hearing supportsthe custody modification | Move alone cannot justify modifying custody; evidence did not support change | Children’s serious mental health effects, continuity of therapy and schooling, and Father’s greater stability supported change | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported change in custody based on children’s best interests |
| 4. Whether modification violated Mother’s rights to interstate travel and familial association | Relocation and its consequences are constitutionally protected and cannot alone justify custody change | Parental rights yield to children’s best interests; relocation consequences may be weighed | Affirmed: court properly weighed travel/association against children’s best interests (Arnott governs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (establishes balancing test for procedural due process)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (pretermination procedures and due process may permit limited predeprivation hearing and prompt postdeprivation review)
- Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (courts have inherent power to take necessary actions to administer justice)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 293 P.3d 440 (Wyo. 2012) (relocation can be considered as material change; parental travel right weighed against child’s best interests)
- Marquiss v. Marquiss, 837 P.2d 25 (Wyo. 1992) (recognition of equitable authority to enter custody orders)
- Huckfeldt v. Huckfeldt, 463 P.2d 927 (Wyo. 1970) (temporary custody orders routinely entered during modification proceedings)