*1 not, therefore, Article violate cerns. It did Vasquez, Wyoming
§ 4 of the Constitution. P.2d at 481.2 Affirmed.
In the Matter ADOPTION JRH, Minor Child:
OF
MJH, Appellant (Respondent), (Petitioners). DV, Appellees
AV and
No. C-05-9.
Supreme Court of
July the officers had searched the Clark and whether or not Once Officer Cornwell arrested Mr. arrest, marijuana vehicle incident established Mr. Kobbe was too intoxicated drive, necessary have impoundment been discovered and would of the vehicle was would have State, Vargas-Rocha v. inventory at trial. search of the vehicle and its been admissible Thus, would have been conducted. contents
ISSUES presents following Father issue for review: the district court Whether abused its dis- holding in nonconsenting cretion biological father in a contested proceeding child support, allowing thus pro- pursuant ceed his consent 1-22-110(a)(ix) (LexisNexis Ann. 2003)?
Appellees, Father, Mother and present an additional for issue review: Whether this must be dismissed because it was not filed?
FACTS Appellant and Mother were not married daughter at the time their was born on Au- gust February 1999.1 On establishing paternity order was entered requiring Appellant per month $168.00 thereafter, in support. Appellant Soon was convicted of a criminal offense. As a consequence, completed the Youthful Of- Program placed fender’s and was on inten- supervised probation. sive In November 2001, Appellant felony was arrested for a drug subsequently offense. He was convict- offense, Appellant ed. As a result of this in County jail, served time the Laramie Wyoming Penitentiary, Wyoming State Representing Appellant: Bert T. Ahl- Community Honor Farm and Adult Cor- strom, Jr., Offices, Chey- of Ahlstrom Law (ACC) facility Cheyenne. rections He was enne, Wyoming. still in program the ACC when the Representing Appellees: Christopher M. was filed. Goodard, Wages, Buffalo, Wages Vogel, & 2004, Appellant petitioned district court for a reduction in his child support obligation. The district court deter- VOIGT, C.J., GOLDEN, Before Appellant’s monthly mined that net income *, KITE, BURKE, HILL JJ. $1,200.00 per month and entered an increasing Appellant’s support order obli- BURKE, Justice. gation per Sep- month effective $254.00 father, Appellant, biological appeals tember 2004. From November 2001 from the granting through August 2004, district court’s order sup- total daughter $5,712.00. of his port obligation without his consent. paid only He affirm. We September From through $895.10. * argument. aling Chief Justice at time portion opinion, of oral this contextual of the following facts are derived from the district 1. The record before us does not contain a tran- Regarding and Conclusions script hearings. parties of the also failed to Adoption Without Consent. pursuant file a statement of the evidence purpose gener- W.R.A.P.3.03. For the limited failed necessity on the basis hearing on the date appeal within in file a notice of consent, a total of Appellant paid $800.00 They Findings and Conclusions. payments no Appellant made determination made petition to claim that the consent arrearages after the on effectively in March end- to trial filed. Prior *3 daughter since in the Appellant’s participation his had not seen ed Appellant appealable constituted a final proceeding and June 2002. order. began adoptive Father and Mother [¶ 5] prior They married in 2001.
living together Appeal of the A. Timeliness adoption proceedings. the initiation issue in this case The threshold [¶ 9] consent petition and Mother’s timely. 7, appeal was “The whether the on is adoption were filed October to the ... appeal of is objecting timely filing of a notice response Appellant filed his 10, 1.03. Where we jurisdictional.” An W.R.A.P. adoption on November to the jurisdiction, appeal must be dis lack an held on March unreported trial was bench Forbes, 134, Yeager missed. v. 21, 2005, to determine whether ¶ 14, 241, Harding 247 necessary. On consent to Glatter, court issued its the district April appeal timely An if it is filed Adop- Regarding “Findings the district court within with the clerk of (Findings and Con- tion Without Consent” entry clusions). thirty days “appealable Ap- of determined The court “appealable or 2.01. An adoption was not order.” W.R.A.P. consent pellant’s as: Ann. 1- der” is defined required pursuant 2003) 22-110(a)(ix) (LexisNexis because (a) affecting An a substantial order seventy percent action, order, in in an when such right period for a of court ordered effect, prevents the action and determines filing prior to the of exceeding years two judgment; or bring sup- had failed to petition (b) affecting a substantial An order days sixty af- obligation current within port or special proceeding; in a right made adopt. petition ter service of (c) summary ap- upon a An order made judgment; or Following of the district in action after plication issuance an [¶ 6] Conclusions, Findings and a subse- court’s (d) order, or- including a conditional An 2005, regard- May in quent hearing was held der, grounds trial on the granting a new adoptive suitability petitioner as an ing of 59(a)(4) (5), Wyo. R. stated in Rule court determined father. The district P.; an appeal if an is taken from such Civ. granted adoption should be order, judgment remain final and shall Adoption May on Decree of and entered the appeal by purposes of in effect for the appeal followed. 2005. This party; or another
(e) Interlocutory
orders and decrees
DISCUSSION
the district courts which:
(1) Grant, continue, modify injunc-
or
court
Appellant contends the district
[¶ 7]
tions,
injunctions,
refuse
or
or dissolve
by granting
erred
modify injunctions; or
or
to dissolve
evidence
He claims that sufficient
consent.
(2)
receivers, or
orders
Appoint
issue
finding that his
support the
does not exist to
receiverships, or to take
up
to wind
obligation
to meet his
failure
purposes there-
accomplish the
steps to
that his failure to
He contends
was willful.
dispo-
of,
directing
or other
such as
sales
solely from
required support resulted
pay the
property.
sition of
his incarceration.
1.05.
W.R.A.P.
father claim
Mother
con-
adoptive Father
Mother and
supports the district
that the evidence
en-
Findings and Conclusions
tend that the
request
of this
They also
dismissal
decision.
ap-
appeal
tered
the district court constitute an
We conclude the
Appellant
filed.
filed his notice of
pealable
order.
asserts that
thirty days
within
of the Decree of
Findings
not in the
and Conclusions were
Adoption. Appellant’s failure to file a notice
form of an order and cannot constitute an
within
after the district
any respect.”
“in
Broadhead v.
order
See
court
issued its
and Conclusions
Broadhead,
(Wyo.1987)
does not bar our review.
(“findings
fact
‘not
and conclusions
law
cannot
the form of
order’
be considered
Pay
Support
B.
Failure to
Willful
Child
purposes
appeal”)
as a
order for
final
(emphasis
original). Appellant
claims that
[¶ 13] District courts have the
and Conclusions did not make a power
grant adoptions
and discretion
with
*4
appeal
final
from which an
determination
parental
“provided
out
all
consent
the statu
could
taken because the
court
be
district
tory elements are satisfied.” See In re
yet granted
adoption
specific
not
the
and the
¶CF, 10,
Adoption
The consent determination was unre of the evidence was
ported and a statement pursuant 3.03. As a
not filed W.R.A.P.
result, review limited to the district our findings of fact. In re
court’s TLC, 14, 46 at 869. The district court P.3d 2006 WY92 Appellant’s req found that failure to uisite child was willful and concluded Joseph MILLER, Appellant (Defendant), required not that his consent was adoption. Although Appellant argues that convincing sup clear and evidence not does Wyoming, The STATE of port finding, without a sufficient record (Plaintiff). Appellee review, we must assume that the district 05-98, Nos. 05-99. findings adequately supported by are presented hearing. the evidence at the Id. Supreme Court of us, upon Based the record before we find no error in the district court’s July determination consent to the required. not Affirmed.
VOIGT, Justice, specially concurring, Chief *6 GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
with whom case, I concur in the result of this
but the should have as been dismissed
untimely. appellant appeal- should have
ed from the and Conclusions Re- because,
garding Adoption Without Consent
thereafter, longer party he was no a clearly
case. The statutes envision process. hearing,
a In bifurcated the first
determination is made whether defendant’s rights
parental should be terminated or proceed
whether the should Adoption consent. See Matter of
MSVW, (Wyo.1998); 1163-64 JLP, Matter Matter
RHA, 1263-64 party proceeding.
The defendant is a to that hearing, the second a determination is proposed
made adoptive parent whether the appropriate. party The defendant is anot proceeding,
to that does not receive notice of proceeding, copy and is not served with a simply the resultant decree. It cannot be statutes and the amended
appellate contemplate rules the defendant