Womack v. Swan, 413 P.3d 127

Background

Parents divorced in 2009; Mother was primary custodial parent of two children. Father filed to modify custody, visitation, and support in 2015.
After a 2.5-day evidentiary hearing (witnesses, experts, ~175 exhibits), the district court issued a sua sponte "Temporary Order for Modification of Visitation" ~4 weeks later: equal shared time, Mother remains primary custodian, reduced exchanges; order would become final after ~7 months unless a party requested a new hearing to show the plan was "unworkable."
Father later requested a hearing under the Temporary Order; extensive pretrial filings and reciprocal contempt claims followed. Over a year after the Temporary Order and nearly two years after the petition, the court held a second full evidentiary hearing and then entered a Final Order awarding primary custody to Father and reducing Mother’s visitation.
The district court found Mother engaged in parental alienation and consumed alcohol in the presence of the children; it held Mother in contempt for violating the Temporary Order and declined to order Father to reimburse certain counseling/flu shots.
On appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court held the district court abused its discretion by issuing an open-ended temporary order after a full merits trial (because stability/finality for children was sacrificed), but it affirmed the Final Order transferring custody to Father; it reversed the contempt finding against Mother for procedural error and remanded Mother’s contempt motion against Father for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether issuing a sua sponte temporary custody order after a full evidentiary hearing was erroneous	Temporary order improperly extended pendency, deprived Mother of finality and review	Court had inherent/equitable authority; temporary order was meant to promote stability/co-parenting	Court abused discretion in issuing an open-ended temporary order after full hearing (temporary orders should be short); but error did not void later final order
Whether the Temporary Order became a final judgment invoking res judicata (precluding relitigation)	Temporary Order was final and should bar a later custody adjudication	Parties were given notice and opportunity; Mother did not invoke res judicata below	Res judicata not applied: Mother failed to assert it in lower court; she litigated the later hearing, so she cannot raise it on appeal
Whether Mother was denied due process by being subjected to a second hearing that could change custody	Second hearing deprived Mother of notice that custody was at risk and required different proof	Temporary Order explicitly warned custody could be finally determined if alienation continued; Mother had ample pretrial time and participated fully	No due process violation: Temporary Order warned parties; Mother had meaningful notice/opportunity and extensive participation
Whether the court properly held Mother in contempt and relied on that in modifying custody	Contempt violated statutory procedure (no show-cause order) and due process; contempt improperly factored into custody change	Evidence supported willful violations (alcohol, alienation); contempt findings informed best-interests analysis	Contempt finding against Mother reversed for procedural error (court failed to issue required show-cause under W.S. §20-2-204(b)); however, the same underlying conduct (alcohol use and alienation) properly informed custody modification; remand Mother’s contempt motion against Father for further proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (U.S. 2016) (courts have inherent powers to act when reasonably necessary for fair administration of justice)
Tracy v. Tracy, 388 P.3d 1257 (Wyo. 2017) (discusses limits on temporary custody orders and courts’ inherent authority)
Ready v. Ready, 906 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1995) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Buttle v. Buttle, 196 P.3d 174 (Wyo. 2008) (criticizes temporary shared custody where parents cannot cooperate; favors finality/stability)
Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428 (Wyo. 1998) (court should not impose joint custody hoping it will make parents better)