*1 1284
sоciety having achieved the character- convict, being ROSICS, a of avoidance ization Robert Andrew persons is neither (Plaintiff), of as witnesses number cases, it possible. nor In some reasonable lie persons’ inability these may that be HEATH, Kаy formerly Ramona known brothers, benighted serves as the aswell Rosies, Kay Appellee as Ramona are, not. why they and the others are cause (Defendant). system, suggested that our without It is differential, should age or characterization Nо. 87-163. of individual look at the witness terms testimony believability and or her Supreme Wyoming. Court of of intrinsic reasonableness. Some terms Dec. away have moved from the automat- courts felony status as a exposure ic conviction in witness
demeaning characterization expect I this
cross-examination. do not fast, go that far but would
court to this conception attor- perceptive
leave in for the lim-
ney to assess whether the “favorable” may deadly.
iting actually instruction case, testimony
In this of the witness inherently unbelievable that neither so cape nor a halo could have authenticated case, I Consequently,
validation. in this giving
would find mistake in an unwanted
limiting kind, instruction but not as constitute
here to reversible error. precept
My recognized by Justice dissenting in Oregon,
Stevens Lakeside v. 98
435 U.S. S.Ct. (1978),
L.Ed.2d in discussion of the subject limiting
differentiated of a instruc- recognizing the right exer- witness’ privilege against
cise self-incrimination: may
“It judge be wise for a trial not to
give such a cautionary instruction over a is, objection.
defendant’s And each State course, frеe to judges forbid its trial doing so as a state law.” matter of specifically
As a case taking position, that State,
see Russell v. 240 Ark. S.W. (1966).
2d 213 attorneys
Reason dictates normally provide
the court should
analysis “helpful” wit- whether not a
ness-qualification limiting instruction given.
should be
1. Did the District Court cor- rectly par- over the ties and their children the Uniform Act, Custody Child espe- Jurisdiction and cially 5—104(a)(iii) W.S.Sec. of said 20— Act? Court, assuming 2. Did said said diction correctly invoked, to have been have to authority modify Order Modi- fying Prior Order of the Texas Court as visitation, support to child and as well as custody?
We will affirm. This case concerns custody Jennifer Rosies, Lynn age and Robert Adam Ro- sies, age original custody 4. The order in this case parties’ result of the 14, 1984, February Texas divorce. That custody granted order physical custody to appellee appellant and to pay ordered child support.
After the appellee divorcе lived with the 5, 1986, January children Texas until Hawthorne, when briefly she moved to Ne- vada. She then moved with the children to Casper, Wyoming. appellee
When and the children had been from for appel- absent Texas three months petition lant filed a Texas district court original custody Appellee was served and retained San An- Appellee’s counsel. tonio counsel failed to Phillip T. Willoughby, Casper, appel- for timely respond petition, and lant. 2, 1986, on June the Texas court modified Lang, Casper, appellee. Leonard E. original custody for order on a default changed physi-
basis. The modified order BROWN, C.J., THOMAS, Before appellee custody appellant and cal and MACY, JJ., appellee URBIGKIT pay supрort. and ordered child RAPER, J., Retired. Appellant copy filed a of the modified order and a Motion for
BROWN, Chief Justice.
Physical Custody Order in the Natrona
1,1986.
County
Court on July
Ap-
District
This is an appeal
for writ of
pellee
given
notice of these aсtivities
corpus challenging
habeas
a district court
by
July
mail on
1986. On
that modified a Texas child
stay any
she moved the
court to
changed physical
order. The order
action on the modified
parties’
appellant,
two children from
apрellant’s motion until the merits of the
appellee,
Robert Andrew Rosies to
Ramona
dispute could
decided.
Heath,
Kay
required appellant
to pay
and certain future medical
On
par-
and his
by appellee
bills to be
incurred
Cаsper
ents went to
trailer
appeal
children. The two issues
essen- where
lived with
two
children.
tially agreed
parties
are:
seeing
After
ex-wife
children in
and the
“(a)
lot,
If a court of another state
made
appellant ran to-
adjacent vacant
custody decree a court of this state
sprayed appellee and Jenni-
them and
ward
modify that decree unless it
shall not
mace,
attempting to
while
fer Rosies with
rendered
appears that
the court which
him.
сhildren with
both
take
does not now have
the decree
son, Robert, from
taking his
succeeded in
prerequisites
sub-
jurisdictional
Robert
Appellant and
appellee and fled.
*3
with this act or
stantially in accordance
by
police and
apprehended
later
were
to
jurisdiction
to assume
has declined
custody.
appellee’s
boy
returned
decree, and the court of this
modify the
and was convicted
pled guilty to
jurisdiction.”
state has
31,
July
assault. On
counts of
of three
295,
Quenzer,
Quenzer
Wyo., 653 P.2d
v.
1986,
district court to
appellee moved the
1041,
(1982) cert. denied 460 U.S.
303-304
the Uniform
jurisdiction under
1436,
(1983).
(UCCJA).1
jurisdiction under the UCCJA custody rendered the the state which Wyoming De- reports from the home ed juris sought modified either declined to be Assistance and Social partment of Public diction, date jurisdiction lacked on the or counterpart. Appel- and its Texas Services custody Wyoming the initial modifica unsuccessfully the court then moved lant Quenzer Quenzer, supra, hearing. tion jurisdiction and award custo- rеlinquish state had or not the other at 303. Whether Texas decree. him dy to on the at that time is based jurisdiction hearing After a second on prerequisites set out jurisdictional UCCJA letter and en- the court issued a decision equivalent of statutory state's in the other modifying tered an order the June W.S.1977,3 20-5-104(a)(iv), pro which § Wyoming The modi- order. vides: granted custody of the children fication “(a) competent to A of this state court pay child appellee and ordered jurisdic- custody matters decide сhild expenses aris- and future medical custody determina- child tion to make a ing out of the 1986 assaults. de- or modification by initial decree Appellant challenges appeal this order on if: cree a for of habeas and has filеd writ of the (i) the home state This state is corpus seeking based return of the children time of commencement child at the on the Texas order. child’s or was the proceeding, (6) months be- within six home state proceeding commencement fоre I from the state the child is absent Wyoming We first hold that the district or retention of his removal because properly jurisdiction court assumed for claiming custody, or person a modify the UCCJA to reasons, parent person or other and a in parent to live acting as continues state; Wyoming For district court to a (ii) the child in the best interest of state it It is final order from another court of this state assume out in that a requirements must first meet the set par- and his W.S.1977,2 because the child 20-5-115(a), provides: diction which § language is codified under Wyoming 2. The identical now §§ 1.The UCCJAis in 20- codified 20-5-125, W.S.1977, (June Replacement. through 5-101 same section in the June 1987 Replacement). It is codified in Texas as 11.- §§ (Vernon through Ann. 11.75 Tex.Fam. Code supra note 2. 3. See 1986). purposes opinion, For numbers will be used. statute ente, (1) 20-4-104(a)(iii), or the child at least one Texas. Section did not con- contestant, significant have a connec- fer because children were tion with the state and is avail- there present in physically Tеxas and no in able this state substantial evidence emergency favoring situation Texas custo- concerning present the child’s or fu- dy present. below, As we will discuss care, protection, training per- ture 20-5-104(a)(iv) permit jur- did not relationships; sonal Sеptember isdiction Wyo- because (iii) physically present The child is in ming could, did, fact this state and has been abandoned or if emergency invoke necessary emergency pro- it is 20-5-104(a)(iii) based on as- tect the because he has beеn sub- saults on and the children on jected to or threatened with mistreat- 28, neglect- or abuse is ment or otherwise The assumption jur dependent; ed or together isdiction taken with these circum *4 (iv) appears It no that other state stances indicates that the first determina jurisdiction prerequi- would have under required 20-5-115(a) tion under met. was § substantially sites in with accordance challenged aspect has never this (ii) (i), (iii) paragraphs or [subdivisions] Wyoming findings, of the court’s and subsection, of this state has аnother therefore, we deem it conclusive. Minne jurisdiction declined to exercise on the Pauli, Wyo., homa Financial Co. v. 565 ground ap- that this state is the more 835, (1977); Appeal P.2d 5 Am.Jur.2d propriate the forum to determine cus- 635, (1962 p. Supp. and Error and § tody of the the it is in best 1986). of interest the child that this court The Wyoming properly district court also jurisdiction.” met the by properly second determination Quenzer Quenzer, supra, v. See also at concluding emergency had it If 303-304. the other state not dе- Quenzer Quenzer, supra, v. diction. See custody jurisdiction, Wyo- clined but the at 304. ming court can determine that the other state jurisdiction lacked under unchallenged The evi court heard 20-5-104(a)(i)-(iv),it can then move on to § the currently dence that childrеn were the second determination. The second de- Wyoming in present appellant and that as Wyoming termination involves the court saulted the children on 20-5-104(a)(i)-(iv), applying to itself to de- § 28, clearly 1986. This cre circumstance termine subject jurisdiction its own matter emergency ated situation sufficient to to modify foreign custody the order. jurisdiction necessary protect confer the this case Wyoming the district In children father their 4, court September found that as of the 20-5-104(a)(iii). jurisdiction, That once § 1986, hearing jurisdic date it could assume assumed, properly was not lost when the this custody over matter. There is no hearings held district court its and issued in the evidence record that the court its decision letter and order on 24 and jurisdiction; ever declined consequently, it May respectively. implicit findings is in Wyoming the briefly We will address jurisdic that the court did not have subject per contention that he was not 4, September tion. The circumstances on jurisdiction Wyoming. in Appellant, sonal 1986, buttress this cоnclusion. There was volition, acting requested of his own af jurisdiction no firmative relief from the district in court 20-5-104(a)(i), appellee and because the § Physical Custody the form of a Motion for of children had been out Texas since Janu so, doing subjеcted 5, Order. In he himself to ary jurisdiction 1986. Texas was not Wyoming Appellant’s 20-5-104(a)(ii), jurisdiction. initial available under based on § sig pleadings challenge jurisdiction the best interests of the children or a did not the court; Wyoming nificant association consequеnt- of children with of district THOMAS, Justice, specially specially in this case. appear ly, he did concurring. jurisdiction over personam Id. In present. Wyoming in was disposition I am in accord with the accomplished by majority opin-
case chronology of events in ion. Given II District Court the Seventh Dis- Judicial we jurisdictional issues resolved theWith Wyoming the State trict of and for Wyoming court that the district next hold County, I am satisfied that Natrona custody order. modified the Texas properly had also 20-5-104(a)(i) (ii), W.S.1977. The can court with A brought Casper, the children to Wy- mother of another the final January 24, oming they had of a it finds sufficient evidence state when residing prior there for six months been change circumstances have substantial filing Motion for Court As- previous entry sinсe of a taken Jurisdiction sume Under Uniform Child 306; Quenzer Quenzer, supra, at Custody Jurisdiction Act on 20-2-113, de- W.S.1977.4 Once proceeding to The determine child made, custody termination is should pleading not initiated until that chil- in the best modified interests filed, though even previously the mother dren. Id. sought protective had relief from the en- forcement of the Texas modification de- In this case the court issued district time, By had cree. become find containing specific letter decision *5 pursuant “home state” thе children ings change of fact that a substantial forth definition set had taken based circumstances 20-5-103(a)(v), (June 1987 Re- W.S.1977 assaults on placement), and could be found existed children. Sufficient evidence also 20-5-104(a)(i). Furthermore, pay to me set it seеms that all conditions expenses future medical related 5—104(a)(ii) forth in are satisfied § 20— assault. at July, testified the record. hearing he had a steady monthly income. The modification proper. modifying
The district
June order is af-
firmed. The for writ of habeas
corpus is denied. Replacement. 4. Now codified as June 1987 amended in the