Prickett v. PrickettPrickett v. Prickett
[T1] Appellant Denise Wendelin, formerly Denise Prickett, claims that the district court erred in its decision that Wyoming, not Nebraska, retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Aun. § 20-5-802 over custody and visitation issues arising from the parties' Wyoming divorce decree. Alternatively, she contends that the district court abused its discretion in failing to decline jurisdiction pursuant to
ISSUES
[12] Ms. Wendelin presents the following issues:
1. Are the District Court's findings that the State of Nebraska did not have jurisdiction of the child custody case contrary to the evidence?
2. Are the District Court's findings that Wyoming is the most convenient forum for child custody and visitation arbitrary and capricious?
FACTS
[13] Ms. Wendelin and Bradley Prickett were married in 1991 in Torrington, Wyoming. During their marriage, the couple had two children. Ms. Wendelin filed a petition for divorce in Wyoming, and the district court granted the petition and dissolved the marriage on December 5, 2001. The court awarded Ms. Wendelin primary custody of the couple's children, and set out a comprehensive visitation schedule for Mr. Prickett. In the summer of 2002, Ms. Wendelin moved with the children to Nebraska. In 2003, in response to a petition filed by Mr. Prickett, the Wyoming district court entered an order modifying visitation.
[14] The current conflict began in the summer of 2006 when Mr. Prickett filed a motion in the Wyoming district court entitled "Motion To Enforce August 20, 2008 Order Regarding Visitation With The Minor Children And To Determine That The Wyoming Order Is Controlling And That Wyoming Has Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction In This Case." The motion alleged in pertinent part that the original Wyoming divoree dеcree was modified by order of the Wyoming district court on August 20, 2003, and that in September 2005, "the District Court of Lincoln County Nebraska ... entered an order in this case which changed the visitation schedule with the minor children." The Ne
[15] Ms. Wendelin responded with a motion to dismiss in which she asserted that the Wyoming district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine custody and visitation issues related to the original decree. Alternatively, she claimed that, pursuant to
[16] The district court held a hearing in August 2006. It was undisputed that Mr. Prickett continued to reside in Wyoming and that Ms. Wendelin lived in Nebraska. Additionally, the parties stipulated to several facts. Specifically, they agreed on the dates that Ms. Wendelin and the children moved to Nebraska and that it was currently the children's home state, that Mr. Prickett exercised his summer visitation in Wyoming, that there were no domestic violence issues in the case, that the distance between the Wyoming and Nebraska courthouses was approximately 200 miles, that eithеr state could expeditiously hear the case, and that the Nebraska court had entered an order modifying visitation in 2005.
[17] Mr. Prickett testified that the children spend their weekend and summer visitation at his residence in Wyoming, and that, in light of his work schedule, the Wyoming сustody order was preferable. Ms. Wendelin also testified. Her testimony largely focused on her assertion that Mr. Prickett had agreed to the Nebraska visitation schedule. She also testified that the children had been attending Nebraska schools for four years, and that their counselors were in Nebraska.
[18] The district court took the matter under advisement and subsequently issued a decision letter concluding that it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to
DISCUSSION
[19] We review a district court's decision regarding its jurisdiction in child custody matters de novo. Ritter v. Ritter,
[T10] This case requires us to apply Wyoming's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enmforeement Act (UCCJEA),
[111] Ms. Wendelin first claims that the district court's finding that it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction was contrary to the evidence. She relies on
(a) Except as provided in W.S. 20-5-304, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with W.S. ~ 20-5-801 or 20-5-308 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(i) A court of this state detеrmines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longeravailable in this state concerning the child's care, protectiоn, training and personal relationships; or
(ii) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.
(Emphasis added.) We have рreviously recognized, when interpreting statutes, that the word "and" is conjunctive. Clark v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div.,
[112] Nevertheless, Ms. Wendelin claims that
[118] Alternatively, Ms. Wendelin contends that the district court abusеd its discretion in rejecting her request to decline jurisdiction. She makes two claims relevant to the inconvenient forum statute,
(a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this act to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the cireumstances аnd that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court. (b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relеvant factors, including:
(i) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(ii) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(ii) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(iv) The relative financial cireumstances of the parties;
(v) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(vi) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of thе child;
(vii) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(viii) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(c) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a courtof another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be prоmptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.
(d) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this act if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorcee or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.
[114] In its decision letter, the district court wrote:
The Court finds that Wyoming is not an inconvenient forum to determine issues of visitation. - Evidence about visitation is just as likеly to be in Wyoming, where the Defendant [Mr. Prickett] exercises his visitation, as in Nebraska. The children have not lived away from Wyoming for a lengthy time, the distance between the parties is not substantial, the parties both earn reasonable incomes, аnd this Court is familiar with the case and able to expeditiously determine the issue. Although the Nebraska Order recites that "the parties stipulate that the Judgment from the State of Wyoming may be registered and enforced in the State of Nebraska," such a stiрulation does not confer Nebraska with jurisdiction to modify the Wyoming Order.
(Emphasis in original.) The excerpt demonstrates that the court did consider the factors identified in
[115] Nebraska allows foreign custody orders to be registered in Nebraska to ease enforcement of those orders.
[116] Additionally, we note that Nebraska hаs also adopted the UCCJEA, with jurisdictional requirements nearly identical to those set forth in
Except as otherwise provided in section 43-1241, a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(2) ofsection 48-1238 and:
(1) the court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under section 48-1239 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 43-1244; or
(2) a court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.
This statutory provision is substantially identical to
[117] In summary, the district court maintained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to resolve custody and visitation issues arising from the parties' original Wyoming divoree decree. Additionally, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that Wyoming remained an appropriate jurisdictional forum.
[T18] Affirmed.