[¶20] Mother contends that the district court denied her due process because it "forced" her into a second trial on the merits, without providing her notice that custody of the children was subject to modification. Because we afford district courts considerable discretion in conducting hearings and trials, we review the sufficiency of process in a custody modification hearing for an abuse of discretion. ELA v. AAB , 2016 WY 98, ¶ 20, 382 P.3d 45, 50 (Wyo. 2016). "The touchstones of due process are notice and the opportunity to be heard. With regard to the amount of process due, we have explained that the notice and the opportunity to be heard must be appropriate to the nature of the case."

To be considered material and justify reopening the custody order, the change in circumstances must have some relevance in the child's life. ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 13, 382 P.3d 45, 49 (Wyo. 2016); Cook v. Moore, 2015 WY 125, ¶ 16, 357 P.3d 749, 754 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Kappen, ¶ 15, 341 P.3d at 382). Here, the district court found Father did not establish a material change in circumstances that affected the welfare of the children to justify re-opening the custody order.

Moreover, "[t]he touchstones of due process are notice and the opportunity to be heard." ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 21, 382 P.3d 45, 50 (Wyo. 2016). Ms. Ward had a full and fair opportunity to be heard in the prior proceedings, Mr. Ward had notice of the prior order before he adopted the children, and he had an opportunity to be heard on his petition to modify.

With regard to the amount of process due, we have explained that the notice and the opportunity to be heard must be appropriate to the nature of the case." Womack v. Swan, 2018 WY 27, ¶ 20, 413 P.3d 127, 136 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 21, 382 P.3d 45, 50 (Wyo. 2016)). "The opportunity to be heard must be meaningful."

[¶18] Because there is no transcript or statement of the evidence, we do not know whether the Guilles requested a continuance when they learned that the court intended to address Mother's motion to terminate the guardianship. See ELA v. AAB , 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24, 382 P.3d 45, 50–51 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that nothing in the record indicated appellant asked for a continuance); Booth v. Booth , 2019 WY 5, ¶ 17, 432 P.3d 902, 908 (Wyo. 2019) (noting that appellant never requested a continuance). Had the Guilles requested a continuance, and the court denied their request, we would have reviewed the denial for an abuse of discretion.

[¶18] Because there is no transcript or statement of the evidence, we do not know whether the Guilles requested a continuance when they learned that the court intended to address Mother's motion to terminate the guardianship. See ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24, 382 P.3d 45, 50-51 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that nothing in the record indicated appellant asked for a continuance); Booth v. Booth, 2019 WY 5, ¶ 17, 432 P.3d 902, 908 (Wyo. 2019) (noting that appellant never requested a continuance). Had the Guilles requested a continuance, and the court denied their request, we would have reviewed the denial for an abuse of discretion.

In fact, the district court commended the parents "for working together to raise, from what the evidence shows, is a happy, healthy child who loves spending time with both parents." This Court will not retry the case on appeal. ELA v. AAB , 2016 WY 98, ¶ 18, 382 P.3d 45, 50 (Wyo. 2016). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision.

Mother never requested a continuance in response to the court’s obvious consideration of modifying the visitation schedule. See ELA v. AAB , 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24, 382 P.3d 45, 50-51 (Wyo. 2016) (rejecting Father’s due process claim, in part, because "[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate that counsel objected or asked to continue the hearing"). Mother had adequate notice that visitation would be addressed at the hearing, and thus, the district court did not violate Mother’s right to due process.

Father is correct that a child's anxiety or other emotional problems will not necessarily establish a material change of circumstances. See, e.g ., Willis v. Davis, 2013 WY 44, ¶ 12, 299 P.3d 88, 92 (Wyo. 2013) ; ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 16, 382 P.3d 45, 49 (Wyo. 2016). However, depending on the situation, a change in the child's emotional state may be an appropriate factor in finding a material change of circumstances.